Is auditing the Fed really the elephant in the room?

Whether or not that's true, that doesn't answer my question. Perhaps you can
tell me why you think we need central planning for money.

 

Injecting politics into any government policy is something that is hated by authoritarian progressives such as you. They'd prefer that everyone just shut up and let the elite do their work without having to account for it, much like cockroaches hate the light.

I'm not sure why you complain, though, as central planning will inevitably fail, and it's very convenient for you to point at those who attempt to hold government and claim that they are the cause of it.

 

Coining money, and regulating the weight is delegated to Congress. Declaring one form of money to be the sole legal tender and basing it on debt is not within their Constitutionally authorized powers. It's not as if the authors of the Constitution were unfamiliar with the dangers of paper money.

And, anyway, I care nothing about the Constitution. The question remains: why should government centrally plan the monetary system?

 

and this is why Ron Paul gets very little coverage on the media.....the people that control the fed also control the media unfortunately. So they will do whatever it takes to see to it that Ron Paul doesn't win!

 

this too, danielpalos.

 

To obtain objectives oriented towards the growth and stability of the market.

We as a society learned long ago that you cannot trust a decentralized banking and money system. One bank might be spotless and another terribly corrupt. One bank might fail, and being a completely private institution, could bilk its depositors out of their gold and split from the country.

Is Ron Paul willing to use military force to go chase down some private banker who had a run and lost his ass and fled the country with a suitcase full of his depositors Gold to Switzerland?

The abuses of the monetary system that took place under de-regulated money and banking were horrible, unstable and helped lead to the Great Depression.

Plus, it's just plain (*)(*)(*)(*) useful to be able to manipulate the value of currency to aid in economic growth, stability and lowering of unemployment.

No one wants to return to the days of private bankers, and private banknotes that have no governing authority other than the bank directors in the back room of the bank.

The fact is, its one of those tradeoffs between Freedom and Security that Constitutional Purists simply cannot stand.

 

well, sir? do you have an answer?

 

I am trying to understand how you reached your conclusion that a public sector means of production such as the Fed or Hoover Dam and that generate revenue in a market friendly manner,

instead of requiring a reallocation of our tax monies in a more collective and coercive manner,

should be considered any form of public detriment or general badfare.

Consider the effect of our wars on abstractions, they generally provide more for the general badfare instead of the general welfare.

 

the FED does not generate revenue in a market friendly manner.

 

Setting Standards for the Union is specifically enumerated as a power delegated to our federal Congress in Article 1, Section 8 of our federal Constitution.

A simple answer is that our Founding Fathers Said so, in Article 6.

From a more logical perspective, what organ of Government or the private sector would be more capable of forms of central planning, than a central bank.

So, for me, from that perspective; why do you believe we don't need central planning from a central bank, for our republic and Union of several States?

 

Why do you believe what you do, if our federal Congress is delegated the power to provide for the general welfare, and pay the Debts?

 

no, sir. I don't believe they did. however, that is not an answer as to why its a good idea, that would only be an answer as to why the government has the authority to do it.

that is completely irrelevant. I asked why we central money planning is a good idea, not "why is government more capable of centrally planning money than it is capable of planning other things in society."

I will answer that, but I asked you first, why you think we do need central money planning, so I would like to hear your answer first. thank you.

 

If you are a California Citizen, you have to care simply because our own State Constitution says so. If you don't care, why do you feel you have any say in our form of federal Government that is based on that Constitution; would you be more consistent if you simply recused yourself from such debates and opinions?

We Must centrally plan our monetary system because of our Union of several States, bound together for their mutual welfare. That can be better assured, currently, through central banking.

Consider the fact that currently, any functioning AnCap that does not have a central banks is less developed than, every, more developed nation that does have a central banking system. From my perspective of that anecdotal evidence, I consider it a self-evident truth in our current and objective, market based reality.

 

In my opinion, open market transactions must be market friendly or they could not occur in a market based political-economy, without the coercive use of force of a State.

 

The FED relies on the coercive force of government to maintain its monopoly.

 

A simple answer is scale economy, in our political-economy and form of federal government and republic and Union of several and sovereign States.

It can be more efficient than not having central planning for a Union of several and sovereign States bound together for their mutual welfare and trade.

 

ok, but why does money need federal central planning or state central planning? why not let the market sort out money on its own?

 

I am not sure I understand your point of view.

Why do you believe a private and mostly autonomous organ of the executive branch is bad because it requires the use of a Standard for a medium of exchange in our Union of several and sovereign States?

Why would any private sector entity be worse off with a Standard for a medium of exchange in any market based political-economy?

 

It may depend on your definition of central planning. Simply coining money based on a Standard can be considered a form of central planning from any official mint.

 

I said I would answer that when you told me why you thought we needed central planning for money.

you're assuming there would be no market based standards.

 

You are correct that I am assuming there could be no Standard for our Union of States from any private sector in our market based, political-economy without that form of central planning.

 

You could google it, or just listen to Paul, who thinks we should return to the gold standard and who claimed the US Constitution bans nonmetalic currency.

That's how deluded gold bugs are.

 

Don't know what this rant means, but I do know that the Fed was established to prevent the politicization of monetary policy (as much as possible), and it's worked pretty well. Since the institution of the Fed the US has become the largest econony on the planet with widespead wealth.

It's that which the Gold Bugs and Tea Partiers really object to: the notion that credit is a good thing and produces economic growth and general wealth. They hate that idea since it conflicts with their punitive and archaic notions of austerity and thrift.

As if macroeconomics responds to private virtue.

 

Because we tried it the other way until about 1880 and it led to economic instability and poverty,with huge recessions every 10 years or so.

Since the establishment of the Fed, we've had only two bad economic turn downs in 100 years, both presided over by rightwing presidents and failed conservative policies. Not bad.

 

Because we tried it the other way and it failed miserably, with a big recession occuring almost every decade and massive economy suffering.

Honestly, you act as if the Fed just happened one day and that there is no history to this. We used to have a private money system in this country. It failed.