Is auditing the Fed really the elephant in the room?

that's like asking thomas jefferson how the revolutionary war made a difference to america


do i need to fill you in on wwII history, too?[/QUOTE]

how is it cheating when depositors agree to the banks terms?

you're confused, it's a free market agreement, between account holder and bank

there is no obligation other than the ones agreed to, as in most any business transaction

as was pointed out earlier, there appears to be much history you have not seen or understood

 

I agree with you that we are not referring to just any Standard that can be fixed through forms of market based arbitrage and the subjective value of morals in a purely market based economy.

In my opinion, your argument is only valid in a vacuum of special pleading. From my understanding, there is no basis for metrics that are external to any given market in, for example, a truer form of AnCap. So, from that perspective, how would any market fix Standards for a City or State, or our federal republic, if that specific market is external to a given market fixing Standards?

Determining a medium of exchange and fixing Standards for a medium of exchange are two different things.

Consider an analogy to a prison system where prisoners use cigarettes as a medium of exchange and that specific market fixes Standards for that "money". Such a medium of exchange can work in that market (as a form of special pleading due to the peculiarity to that "market"), and, it may even be claimed that cigarettes are a Standard of that medium of exchange over tobacco that is not in the form of a cigarette.

Does that Standard of that medium of exchange "work" outside of that vacuum of special pleading in a State that has a delegated authority to fix Standards for that State (including the prison that is located within that State) and which cannot prohibit prisoners from using cigarettes as a medium of exchange within that prison?

 

Having to bail out banks is not any better for any consumer of Statism.

 

in plainer terms, you're arguing for a sort of libertarian anarchy, are you not?

 

I am only advocating bearing true witness to the excellent job our Founding Fathers did, at the Convention, with our federal Constitution.

In my opinion, we would not have the social dilemmas we currently have, if only we had been that moral, if not that holy.

 

So then you'd agree that government central planning is good in any market, or is money some special commodity which has properties that no other commodity has and therefore responds well to centralized planning and complete government control?

Ah yes, the collective "we" in which one argues that "we" did something so one does not have to defend one's individual opinion about something. "We" intelligent people learned long ago that such arguments are bunk. How are your words any different than "We learned long ago that healthcare should never be about profit" or "We learned along ago that Republicans can't create jobs" or "We learned long ago that marriage shouldn't be about one man and one woman."

This can happy with any business or commodity. What makes money so different that it needs to be completely under the control of government?

I don't think he'd use military force to chase down any company that people chose to take risks with and lost. Risk is part of business. You believe, for some reason, that risk in money should be socialized, but not everything else. It makes no sense.

Money was deregulated prior to the Great Depression? The Fed had been in existence for 18 years. Legal tender laws had been on the books for almost 60 years. Government frequently was inflating the money supply and devaluing the currency. You have a strange notion of "deregulation."

It's definitely use to governments that want to fund a welfare/warfare state without overtly taxing everyone into poverty. Instead it can be done by the stealth tax of inflation. In every major economic downturn, the hand of government intervention is apparent. Manipulating currency does not lead to prosperity; it inevitably leads to failure. Every fiat currency has eventually collapsed leading to misery for those least able to afford it. It's already happened twice in the US.

Another fallacious bandwagon argument. If you don't like using private banknotes, don't take them. I know it's really hard to get away from the nanny state that protects you from risk at a premium price, but plenty of people do it every day.

I'm not a "Constitutional Purist" as I don't believe that the constitution has any more authority over sovereign individual rights than any other monarch, dictator, or the mob rule of democracy. I'm someone who favors liberty through the objective natural rights ethics based on self-ownership.

But since you favor trade-offs in some cases, perhaps you can explain what your objective principles, or perhaps it's that you favor expediency based on gut emotion, much like any other progressive? You complain a great deal about progressives, but I don't see any real difference between you and they when it comes to the power of the state.

 

I'll leave it to the great classical liberal theorist, Lysander Spooner to explain: The Constitution of No Authority.

I hold that all human beings are self ownership, and this cannot be logically argued against as the very fact that you can attempt to argue against self-ownership proves that you own yourself. Therefore, any attempt to interfere with the peaceful exercise of self-ownership is violence and I hold that if violence against peaceful people is objectively right in some cases because it justifies some ends, it is objectively right in all cases in which the ends seem justified, therefore violence against peaceful people is a moral wrong. The Constitution allows some violence against peaceful people and is therefore a moral wrong. Since I am in no way bound to it, nor can anyone be bound to a moral wrong, even those who take an oath to uphold a moral wrong, I cannot accept the Constitution as authoritative.

Congress is an organized gang of criminals. Even if it occasionally attempts to follow some of the rules the founders of that gang put in place does not make it rightful or even lawful.

 

you realize george washington signed the legislation that gave 'the first bank of the united states' its charter, right?

 

I am not sure what you are referring to. Most State constitutions declare the right to forms of ownership to inalienable or indefeasible.

As for the legitimacy of government:

 

I am not sure what your point is. It could be argued that our Founding Fathers got it right the first time, with the First Bank of the United States.

 

I believe your founding fathers also said that to control the money is in affect to control the people ( or something like that) I think they understood the dangers of a private federal reserve and unsound money!

 

You are welcome to expound on your line of reasoning.

In my opinion, having a central bank better promotes and provides for the general welfare and common defense than not having a central bank.

 

a central bank controlled by the government yes....but not a private one.....as it leaves room for coruption and other nasty things! In most other nations the central bank is an arm of the federal government!

 

what private bank gives all its net-profits to the government? the answer is: none



Federal Reserve earned $45 billion in 2009

By Neil Irwin - Washington Post Staff Writer - 1/12/2010

The Fed will return about $45 billion to the U.S. Treasury for 2009, according to calculations by The Washington Post based on public documents.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/11/AR2010011103892.html

 

but you are also forgetting that a private bank has no obligation to the people to do things for the benefit to all...only to maximize profits!

 

i'm not forgetting anything, the federal reserve is not 'owned' by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution, it's an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects

 

uhmmmmm....you better double check on that.....I believe the federal reserve is owned by 12 member banks!

 

i don't need to double check, i've understood this for over 30 years

first of all, banks aren't people and the statement comes straight from the horse's mouth

second, your statement isn't correct

third, federal reserve stock in the 12 regional fed banks is owned by member banks


The twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized much like private corporations--possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan…

The Federal Reserve is not controlled by private banks, but by a publicly appointed board of governors. Many confuse "owning" and "controlling". Private banks, while they may own shares in the individual Federal Reserve Banks, do not have any control over the Federal Reserve System, much like how a private individual may own shares of a large corporation, but has little say in the day to day operations.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/pf/pf.htm

 

What concerns do you have over our current regime; that include a mostly autonomous organ of the executive branch that is market friendly because it is a part of the private sector.

 

simple.....you have groups like the elites that are more interested in personal gains that whats best for the nation!

 

ok then.......so who actually controls the currency being created?

 

..and the entire point is there is no profit in the Federal reserve system, so exactly how are these people personally gaining?

You have a conspiracy theory that is all you have.

 

I'll go with one of the govs favorite sayings. If you have nothing to hide, there should be no problem, right?

 

the treasury and fed

 

then why are they so afraid of allowing to audit the fed?