What can be done to realistically make the FED vanish?

Seriously. What can realistically be done, and by whom, to actually end the monetary-and in general-economic tyranny and artificial wealth disparity, imposed on us by the FED?

(On a side note, it disgusts me how you left-erals claim to support the middle class, and yet love the FED. The FED is the second largest destroyer of the middle class, other than the rest of the federal and state governments which legally steal from people. The only ones you seem to really care about are the bottom feeders of society, welfare recipients, criminals, and ah yeah, "minorities", whatever that ARBITRARY term actually precisely means).

 

I regularly buy precious metal coins and resell them later for higher prices. Too bad even THAT trade is mediated by the U.S. dollar; the emblem of monetary tyranny. I'm trying to escape monetary tyranny by utilizing an artifact of monetary tyranny; not because it's entirely voluntary, but because it's being imposed on me.

Edit: you can betcha that my savings do not exist in any bank, but rather, in a safe in my house. You can also betcha that my savings are not in the form of the U.S. dollar, or any other government note.

 

You have no qualms with plutocracy, yet favor ending the Fed, an institution immersed in plutocratic influence? I suggest you look up the word 'hypocrisy'. Your threads epitomize the term.

 

The FED does nothing but legally steal from people, especially the rich who have no other choice but to try and escape the FED with offshore accounts etc. There is no hypocrisy here.

 

You clearly do not understand the machinations of the Federal Reserve system. Central bankers, and other members of official institutions hold two-thirds of all Treasury securities. Individuals in said institutions are some of the wealthiest individuals out there. They do not see their wealth confiscated, but enhanced. The Federal Reserve would be created, among other reasons, to maintain the supremacy of banking elites.

 

There is a difference between legitimately obtained wealth, and illegitimately obtained wealth. The FED does not legitimately obtain it's wealth. It confiscates it. Rich people in the private sector legitimately obtain their wealth.

If it were the FREE MARKET that hypothetically resulted in 1% of the human population owning all physical resources on the planet, it would be their rightful prerogative to order everyone else to either leave Earth, or die for trespassing.

 

Official institutions include private sector banks. Their rich employees are the beneficiaries of the Federal Reserve's monetary policy. These individuals obtain, to a large degree, their wealth, through what you consider a vile entity. Furthermore, you should realize that the Federal Reserve is, in fact, a partial private sector construct. The Federal Reserve's basic framework would be agreed upon by private sector banks in a meeting on Jekyll Island in 1910.

 

Frankly, if it's not absolutely private, it's not actually private. Either I can set my own (non-violent) rules for my own organization that I want, or I can't. I'm either totally in control of said organization or else there's an outside force that is imposing itself on me in some way, no matter the relative degree of force thereof.

The FED is not "private". It's either 100% private, or it's evil.

 

The rest of your post was wrong, but I honestly don't know about this part. Can we hear more on this from some of the non-crazy people?

No offense, MC. I would ask you for further information directly, but even if you have a point you'll be so busy expounding on everything that you think is wrong with me and people like me, I'm worried that hypothetical point could be lost in the depths of your disgust with my kind.

 

Just because you do not understand what the Fed does because it's way beyond your comprehension level, doesn't mean we should abolish it. And if we did abolish it, we would just create a new name for it. The last thing we need is for politicians to control monetary and fiscal policy. Every developed country in the world has a central bank. Do you really want to be more like a 3rd world country just because you don't understand what central banks do?

 

The rest of your post is so absurd, it deserves to be taken off by the mods. But this here I'll address.

Obviously, this is my point with this thread-that monetary and fiscal policy should, just like any other economic issue, be determined by free market capitalism rather than "politicians", or any other agent than free market agents.

 

Ok, well, why don't I just put that aside for a moment. What exact points of mine do you disagree with and why so?

 

No, it wouldn't.

But just out of curiosity -- what percentage of the 1% do you suppose agrees with you?

 

Okay ... but this will take some time. Point by point, coming up.

 

So you want a 1700s economy in the 21st century? Very intelligent... lol

 

How? Do you not believe in private property rights? The logical conclusion of "private property rights" is that even if the liberal fantasy of all property being owned by 1% of people, or even a single individual, that single individual would have the right to cast every single other person on Earth off of Earth, or else order them to all be penalized for trespassing and refusing to leave.

I don't care. What percentage of whatever group of people agreeing with me doesn't mean I'm wrong.

 

I don't understand this bizarre comment. I want free market capitalism. The goodness of FMC are independent of time.

 

She's basically calling you retarded for not wanting a safety net for the poor.

 

Step one: Elect Constitutionalist candidates to the Congress. By Constitutionalist I mean those candidates who promise too and will abide by and respect and adhere too, our Constitution.

Immediately the first chance the people get, voting out those who violate that promise, and who do not adhere too and abide by the Constitution of the United States when casting their votes on existing and proposed pieces of legislation.

Step two: Support them in their efforts to implement and restore Constitutional government to the United States.

And In effort to further support those Constitutionalist Representative's in our Congress, only vote for and elect to the presidency the same sort/type of individuals. Demanding and supporting, the immediate impeachment and removal from office per the Constitution of the United States and following conviction in a trial by the House of Representatives, as per the Constitution of the United States, any candidate who is either inelligible to hold the office or who promises to do abide by and adhere to the Constitution of the United States, and then once in office, does not.

Step three: Support that President and those Representative's and Senator's in their effort to adhere to the Constitution of the United States, and in their efforts to as the Constitution allows, impeach and replace justices of the Supreme court who have issued rulings contrary to Constitutional governance and the directly expressed will of the people through their representatives in the Congress of the United States, in order to replace said Constitution violating justices, with Justice's who have a legal history of issuing rulings in the lower courts that abide by and adhere to, the Constitution of the United States.

Finally if the above four do not or cannot be implemented by the People of the United States, then it is up to the state governments themselves, and quite very possibly the military of the United States itself, to insist and demand that Constitutional governance be restored in the United States.

Again through the legal Constitutional process the States have at their disposal. A new Constitutional convention to form a new federal government.

And if all else fails, then it is up to the people ourselves, to implement and restore Constitutional governance to the United States, by any means required to do so and at the disposal of the people of the United States, as expressed and preserved in the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

Lastly let me just say this, no I"m not calling for armed revolution here, although I do acknowledge that there are those who do, and who have tried in our history to instigate such revolution.

I am for the law, and the Constitution, both permit and provide a legal means for the people to restore Constituional governance to our nation.

Thus and therefore let me be very very clear on this, I believe we the people can restore Constitutional Governance to OUR nation through the approved, vetted, time tested, electoral process.

We just have to get off our fat backsides and hit the polls to vote and do so. If we do, so at and for every level of government, only electing those who will abide by and adhere to the Constitution of the United States, that will and does spell the end of such organizations as the FED. And a restoration of the Constitutional Government our founders envisioned.

Regards, John Adams.

 

I don't know. I don't know if there actually is any monetary or economic tyranny, or any kind of wealth disparity, imposed on us by the federal reserve. I don't know if there isn't, either. I just honestly don't know. Nor do I know how to make the federal reserve go away.

But I disagree with your use of the term "fed." It's too vague. Some people use it to refer to the federal reserve and some people use it to refer to the federal government -- and if they use it to refer to the federal government, they might either mean the national government, which is federal, or the federal style of government as opposed to another style of government.

I disagree. It's not a side note, it's your main point, it's just not what's in the thread title.

I disagree. You're not actually disgusted. You're just being melodramatic.

I disagree. Us leftists support all the classes, not just the top, that's where the disagreement is, Right-wingers inexplicably seem to want to support only the wealthiest people, somehow ignoring two facts: that this is cruel to most of humanity and also that this is a terrible way to maintain wealth.

I disagree. We don't love the federal reserve. We like things that work out well for everyone. If the federal reserve is such a thing, then we'll support it. If it isn't, we won't.

That's the part I don't know about it. You could be right. I'm hoping a more coherent person than either of us can shed some light on this.

I disagree on a technicality. You can't legally steal from someone.

I disagree. Again, we care about everyone. You're familiar with the phrase LIBERTY FOR ALL? We believe in that.

Welfare recipients are not "bottom-feeders." They are more likely to create economic energy with their spending than the spending of the wealthy is. Far less of the money they spend ends up being spent on themselves -- it's spent on the rest of society. That's not true of the wealthy, who spend a greater portion of their income on themselves. Which they have a right to -- but let's keep straight who's actually eating whom. Nobody asks the poor how they should spend their money. The poor are told how their money will be budgeted.

I disagree with your use of the term criminals. We do care about criminals, because they tend to be human beings, but we don't care about them any more than anyone else. It's just that we do care about them that offends you. Criminality, in a legal sense, is determined by the state. I don't give the state the power to decide how I think about someone. Just because the state says you're in violation of their law doesn't automatically make you a non-person.

It means "people who who are not a majority, and thus unavoidably marginalized, even (perhaps especially) in a democracy."

I disagree that you don't know that.

And I disagree that you don't care about minorities. You probably just haven't thought it through. In a way, each of us as individuals is a minority of one. Including you, by definition, whomever you are.

 

What if the free market capitalism you speak about is so destructive to an economy that we become susceptible to take over by foreign enemies?

And this is a serious question. One of the main reasons fiat money came about is Government's needed a way to fund the military. The military was actually one of the cornerstones of developing an organized monetary system.

 

I do, but not to the extent that you do, apparently. There are considerations and responsibilities that take priority over property rights. Human life, for example. At least sometimes.

That's not a liberal fantasy, that's a republican dystopia. And that right does not exist. It couldn't be enforced.

I agree. I've just always wondered -- do the economic elites really think as selfishly as you seem to want them to?

 

Legalizing free banking. If the Dollar is as good as the Fed says it is, then it obviously should have no problem competing with free market currencies. If it can't, the Fed won't vanish...it will just become obsolete.

 

Are you counting China and Japan as "official insitutions"?

I call bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Proof please.

Why do they need the Fed when they have Congress?

 

First step: Provide a realistic, logical, sound and practical alternative to control the money supply.

No one has done that yet.

If you don't have a better alternative, you're not going to get any support for replacing the current system.