I wrote, yesterday:
Ron Paul's House bill calling for an audit of the Fed is getting support from the strangest places... If Democrats start signing on to the bill in heavier numbers, it may be a sign that an audit may come, but it will end with a restructured Fed controlled by left wing radicals, who believe money is for handing out and who have no fear of inflation.North writes:
Ellen Brown is a lawyer. She is anti-Federal Reserve. So, she gets a hearing in conservative circles. This is unfortunate. There is nothing conservative about her. She is an apologist for statism and the United States Treasury (a wholly owned subsidiary of Goldman Sachs)...She is in the tradition of Gertrude Coogan and the other 1950's greenback inflationists whose footnote-free books are kept in print by Omni Books. They all have this in common: they want the American money system to be run by Congress.North nails it. This is from Brown's web site:
Just as we need publicly-operated police, courts and laws to keep individual and corporate predators at bay, so we need a system of truly national banks, in which the power to create the money and advance the credit of the people is retained by the people.And it doesn't get more bizarrely inflationist then this from Brown's web site, again:
A government with a properly designed and monitored system of publicly-issued money could fund itself without taxes, debt or inflation.An end the Fed movement is fine, as long as it is tied to an alternative such as a gold standard. An audit of the Fed may simply provide the opportunity for all kinds of statists and interlopers to restructure the Fed so that it becomes even more inflationist.
Personally, I think the intricacies of how central banks work and how the money supply works is not understood well enough by the masses. Thus they can be very easily manipulated into false solutions that may be even worse than the current situation.
I really wish Congressman Paul would work on more clearly defined issues that can help now with the potential for less misunderstanding by the public.
You're kidding right? Read the constitution. The power of controlling the value and coinage of money is a power given to the legislative branch. Maybe you should look into fractional reserve banking before accusing constitutionalists of being inflationists. Since the Federal Reserve has commandeered the money supply, inflation has devalued the dollar by about 96%. In the year the dollar was the most inflated that it had ever been before 1913 (1864), one 1790 dollar was worth 1.96. One 1790 dollar in 2009 was worth 23.28. In other words, in 1790, an 1864 dollar would be worth 50 cents and a 2009 dollar would be worth 4 cents. The dollar was the strongest when we had no wars and when we had no central bank. Maybe you should do some research from before 1913.
ReplyDeleteThe gold standard made the dollar strong and when the government suspended the gold dollar for a fiat dollar, we only devalued it by 50% before we stopped printing money. Now that the Federal Reserve controls the money supply (though still printed by the mint and traded {at cost} for federal reserve notes, meaning they manipulate the value of the governments currency) they print banknotes and charge us the interest, though its not even their money... ITS OURS! (One Federal Reserve Note being value at 100 pennies, regardless of the amount printed)
If the government took back control of the dollar, we could either have inflation to pay the off the national debt and taxation to reduce the supply of money and increase the value of the dollar. Until then, we will continue to see high taxes and high inflation due to the fraudulent private Federal Reserve Bank and we will continue to see Wall Street win at the expense of the lower and middle class.