5 ms·

Notable historical figures who gave the central banking cartels the finger are in the minority. They include interesting mix like Abraham Lincoln, Hitler and Ga

Notable historical figures who gave the central banking cartels the finger are in the minority. They include interesting mix like Abraham Lincoln, Hitler and Gadaffi. After Lincoln won they just weasled their way back in. The Fed can just electronically debit an account and create money out of thin air. However, the power to control the US money supply is a constitutional right of Congress. We should take that back. It should be done via a k-percent algorithm. Get rid of fractional reserve banking while you're at it.

grogenaut 9y ago
Could you explain your last paragraph and why you think it's a good idea?
- wallace_f 9y ago
  Milton Friedman did a much better job of this than I could here. I don't agree with him on all things, but there are good reasons behind these ideas. The fact the Fed's balance sheet swelled to 4.5trillion with free money is just outrageous. Wall St, nor the Fed, can regulate themselves and they their "dual mandate" is financial alchemy at best.
WalterBright 9y ago
> However, the power to control the US money supply is a constitutional right of Congress. Actually, it isn't. The Fed was created as an end run around the Constitution. The Constitution does not grant this power because of the experience with the Continental Congress and their profligacy at printing money. > Get rid of fractional reserve banking while you're at it. Nothing wrong with that. Its excesses are held in check under a free banking system.
- wallace_f 9y ago
  If I am not mistaken, the right to print and regulate money is explicitly written in the constitution. I did some Googling, and it is in Article 1 Section 8. >"The Constitution contains only two sections dealing with monetary issues. Section 8 permits Congress to coin money and to regulate its value. www.let.rug.nl/usa/essays/general/a-brief-history-of-central-banking/money-and-the-constitution.php
  - WalterBright 9y ago
    Coin money and regulate its value, yes. Print money, no. The distinction is crucial, and the choice of words deliberate. There's a reason why the Fed is a pseudo-private institution, not just another government agency.
    - wallace_f 9y ago
      I disagree. "Regulate it's value," is unambiguous in meaning.
      - WalterBright 9y ago
        If you're right, why didn't the government print currency for 120 years, and why did they set up a pseudo-private organization to do it?
        wallace_f 9y ago
        Oh come on. We are calling in to question the existence of every single constitutional injustice in the last 120 years here.
ganeshkrishnan 9y ago
> Get rid of fractional reserve banking while you're at it. And replace it with what? The barter system?
- wallace_f 9y ago
  Normal banks that hold money. 100% reserve banking. Something Milton Friedman and Paul Krugman agree on, at least at times, is that commercial banks should be like utility companies.
  - candiodari 9y ago
    Luckily it's not like that was ever tried before, or we would have some idea of what will happen. Oh ... wait ... https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/1932-01-01/crisis-gold-standard https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/1932-01-01/crisis-go... The problem, at its root, is that we have large parts of the world with negative trade balances. What that boils down to is that there are large parts of the world that don't have any economic use but get included anyway. Those parts represent interruptions to an economy that only works long-term if it's a circle. Now just so we're clear: the problem is overcapacity, and a demand-limited economy. The solution is obviously not to cut parts out and lower demand further (why not ? Because anyone doing that will get outcompeted in a credit-based economy and therefore doing this is not a Nash equilibrium).
  - ganeshkrishnan 9y ago
    >Normal banks that hold money. 100% reserve banking. Loans and Home mortgages would be impossibly difficult to get. You do realize that when we get a loan from the bank, the loan amount minus the down-payment exists only electronically? The balance is supposed to be wiped out if we repay the loan but that never happens. I am not saying fractional reserve banking is perfect but what are the alternatives?
    - wallace_f 9y ago
      Nothing is for free. There are no magic tricks that create free money. If you think about this, home loans (and moreso the banking empires) are subsidized by the average worker and money-holder. However, with a k-percent rule keeping inflation at 0.5-1% it would not be that much harder to get financing. I do agree we need monetary growth to avoid commodity money. In other words, we don't want people holding money because it grows in value--we want people to have some incentive to invest it. If you want to give people free money to buy houses, just give them free money. Wall St & the Fed are a criminal middleman profiting off everyone else's expense. The real question is how do you fairly grow the money supply if we cut out the Fed? Maybe finance national healthcare this way. Hospitals could issue currency and buy securities on the open market. We could even restrict it to treasuries to subsidize the national debt like we do now.

grogenaut 9y ago

Could you explain your last paragraph and why you think it's a good idea?

wallace_f 9y ago
Milton Friedman did a much better job of this than I could here. I don't agree with him on all things, but there are good reasons behind these ideas. The fact the Fed's balance sheet swelled to 4.5trillion with free money is just outrageous. Wall St, nor the Fed, can regulate themselves and they their "dual mandate" is financial alchemy at best.

WalterBright 9y ago

> However, the power to control the US money supply is a constitutional right of Congress. Actually, it isn't. The Fed was created as an end run around the Constitution. The Constitution does not grant this power because of the experience with the Continental Congress and their profligacy at printing money. > Get rid of fractional reserve banking while you're at it. Nothing wrong with that. Its excesses are held in check under a free banking system.

wallace_f 9y ago
If I am not mistaken, the right to print and regulate money is explicitly written in the constitution. I did some Googling, and it is in Article 1 Section 8. >"The Constitution contains only two sections dealing with monetary issues. Section 8 permits Congress to coin money and to regulate its value. www.let.rug.nl/usa/essays/general/a-brief-history-of-central-banking/money-and-the-constitution.php
- WalterBright 9y ago
  Coin money and regulate its value, yes. Print money, no. The distinction is crucial, and the choice of words deliberate. There's a reason why the Fed is a pseudo-private institution, not just another government agency.
  - wallace_f 9y ago
    I disagree. "Regulate it's value," is unambiguous in meaning.
    - WalterBright 9y ago
      If you're right, why didn't the government print currency for 120 years, and why did they set up a pseudo-private organization to do it?
      - wallace_f 9y ago
        Oh come on. We are calling in to question the existence of every single constitutional injustice in the last 120 years here.

ganeshkrishnan 9y ago

> Get rid of fractional reserve banking while you're at it. And replace it with what? The barter system?

wallace_f 9y ago
Normal banks that hold money. 100% reserve banking. Something Milton Friedman and Paul Krugman agree on, at least at times, is that commercial banks should be like utility companies.
- candiodari 9y ago
  Luckily it's not like that was ever tried before, or we would have some idea of what will happen. Oh ... wait ... https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/1932-01-01/crisis-gold-standard https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/1932-01-01/crisis-go... The problem, at its root, is that we have large parts of the world with negative trade balances. What that boils down to is that there are large parts of the world that don't have any economic use but get included anyway. Those parts represent interruptions to an economy that only works long-term if it's a circle. Now just so we're clear: the problem is overcapacity, and a demand-limited economy. The solution is obviously not to cut parts out and lower demand further (why not ? Because anyone doing that will get outcompeted in a credit-based economy and therefore doing this is not a Nash equilibrium).
- ganeshkrishnan 9y ago
  >Normal banks that hold money. 100% reserve banking. Loans and Home mortgages would be impossibly difficult to get. You do realize that when we get a loan from the bank, the loan amount minus the down-payment exists only electronically? The balance is supposed to be wiped out if we repay the loan but that never happens. I am not saying fractional reserve banking is perfect but what are the alternatives?
  - wallace_f 9y ago
    Nothing is for free. There are no magic tricks that create free money. If you think about this, home loans (and moreso the banking empires) are subsidized by the average worker and money-holder. However, with a k-percent rule keeping inflation at 0.5-1% it would not be that much harder to get financing. I do agree we need monetary growth to avoid commodity money. In other words, we don't want people holding money because it grows in value--we want people to have some incentive to invest it. If you want to give people free money to buy houses, just give them free money. Wall St & the Fed are a criminal middleman profiting off everyone else's expense. The real question is how do you fairly grow the money supply if we cut out the Fed? Maybe finance national healthcare this way. Hospitals could issue currency and buy securities on the open market. We could even restrict it to treasuries to subsidize the national debt like we do now.