Should the Federal Reserve keep printing money, and should we allow competing c

1. 58

   adamknowsposted 12 years ago

   Should the Federal  Reserve keep printing money, and should we allow competing currencies?
   
   

   replyreport
2. 92

   Faceless39posted 12 years ago

   Since we went off the gold standard and onto the fiat monetary system, things have gotten a little crazy. 
   
   I find the image of Bernanke and Lincoln combined to be offensive.  However, it attracted my attention.
   
   I think a currency based on paper and inflation is meant to do badly for us, and do well for the government.  That's my $0.02.

   replyreport
3. 78

   rafkenposted 12 years ago

   No the "Fed" should not print anymore money, the Government should print it's own.
   Each time the Fed prints money, it is loaned to the Government, this loan has to be paid back with interest, why? All taxes paid in the US are paid to the Fed, a privately owned Bank, as payments on the interest of the money printed. To this day 3 Presidents contemplated removing the power of the Fed out of private hands, the last being Kennedy. All 3 Presidents were assassinated. Coincidence, or the power of the privately owned Federal Reserve?
   Iceland, where a couple of years ago, the people refused to pay a Bank bailout, are now seeing their private mortgages and other debts being paid back by their Government whilst bankers are going on trial.

   replyreport
4. 0

   CJ Sledgehammerposted 12 years ago

   The Federal Reserve should be abolished and all its members imprisoned. All it is, is an international banking cartel. They are despicable, treasonous, and corrupt to the core.
   
   Upon letting the Federal Reserve set up shop in the United States in 1913, U.S. President, Woodrow Wilson said, "I think I have just destroyed my country."
   
   Each time the U.S. allows the Federal Reserve to print money, we have to pay for it. Please understand that the Federal Reserve does not want paper money as payment...no. Instead they require precious medals as payments.
   
   Why? Because money is worthless, whereas precious medals are real.  Fort Knox is probably empty by now...and it was held up by an international banking cartel called the Federal Reserve, run by Rothschilds and Rockefellers.

   replyreport
5. 68

   conradofontanillaposted 12 years ago

   The Federal Reserve bank should print money if it results in expansion of economy; not print if it results in runaway inflation. Competing currencies should not be allowed. read more

   replyreport
6. 81

   Attikosposted 12 years ago

   Under the US Constitution, the federal government is not authorized to issue money itself. The largely fictitious device of a privately owned central bank, the FRB, was adopted as a technical evasion of that issue.
   
   The several States are Constitutionally free to issue money, but fiat currencies, i.e. bills of credit, are explicitly forbidden. A few of the States, recognizing the reality that the US dollar has been so debased by the federal government's prodigal spending and debt, have made preparations to do it should it become necessary.
   
   The question here, as in many other matters facing Americans, is whether or not government in the US is still bound by the US Constitution to a degree sufficient to permit reform. I.e., particularly in this issue, is the State route of rescue for American currency still open? It is given that Washington will resist any move to encroach on its power of control, that it will disregard Constitutionality in its authoritarianism, and that as of today it has the ability to force its policies onto the States and the American people. My view is we are past the point of reform and that the States' tentative attempts to restore viable currency for the people will be crushed by whatever means the federal government deems necessary when they take steps to put them into practice. YMMV.

   replyreport
7. 82

   Doc Snowposted 12 years ago

   A number of previous responses to this question seem incompatible with what I've read about the Fed.  Here's what Wikipedia has (in part) to say:
   
   "The Federal Reserve System has both private and public components, and was designed to serve the interests of both the general public and private bankers. The result is a structure that is considered unique among central banks. It is also unusual in that an entity outside of the central bank, namely the United States Department of the Treasury, creates the currency used.
   
   "According to the Board of Governors, the Federal Reserve is independent within government in that "its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government." Its authority is derived from statutes enacted by the U.S. Congress and the System is subject to congressional oversight. The members of the Board of Governors, including its chairman and vice-chairman, are chosen by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The government also exercises some control over the Federal Reserve by appointing and setting the salaries of the system's highest-level employees. Thus the Federal Reserve has both private and public aspects. The U.S. Government receives all of the system's annual profits, after a statutory dividend of 6% on member banks' capital investment is paid, and an account surplus is maintained. In 2010, the Federal Reserve made a profit of $82 billion and transferred $79 billion to the U.S. Treasury. This was followed at the end of 2011 with a transfer of $77 billion in profits to the U.S. Treasury Department."

   replyreport
8. 85

   My Esotericposted 12 years ago

   You can tell who has read their economic history books and who has not.  Conradofontanilla and Doc Snow have it right, and the rest, so far don't have an understanding of what has happened in history.
   
   They don't know that EVERY time there has been an economic hiccup, being on a single metal or bi-metal standard has caused positive feedback and made matters worse ... every time from 1812 to 1974.  They don't know that EVERY time the state banks were allowed to print and issue there own currency, the economy went to hell-in-a-handbasket because nobody knew what exchanges rates to use for transactions between states and internationally (yes, there was a lot of international trade in the 1800s)  And bi-metalism, of which Americans were particuarly fond to support our silver mines, meant for international trade, we had to use gold, because that is all Europe would accecpt, than then silver and gold state-side; what a damn mess.
   
   The Fed HAD to be established in George Washington's administration and again in Andrew Jackson's administration to bail America out of its economic problems; they were not renewed after their 20-year charter ran out.  The Fed, a government- run organization led by government-paid personnel "which incorporates a private component" came about because of the near depression caused by two-men who tried to cornor the copper market in 1907 and ended up causing a massive run on banks which was in the process in destroying the American economy, yet again.
   
   However, it was saved by the 1907 version of TARP, but not one created by the government, but by that hated banking cartel one of the commenters mention, one led by J.P. Morgan.  He and his cronies managed to save America from a depression, and keep it to a bad recession, by pulling together enough money to keep the major banks of the day afloat, TARP to a 'T'.
   
   The power exhibited by Morgan and his cartel scared the bejezus out of Americans and Congress, as grateful as they were for being saved.  From that, the current Federal Reserve System was born.
   
   One not, the system that came out ot the Jykell Island conference as very much like that suggested by Rafken, but what emerged from Congress in 1913 is that described by Conradofontanilla and Doc Snow.
   
   BTW Attikos, you need to reread Article 1, Section 8 about Congress' ability to borrow and Coin [print] money.

   replyreport