• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Audit the Federal Reserve?

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Wow! I never would have guessed that this thread would be about Sander's ideas regarding the Fed. I was most certain it would be influenced by Ron Paul's legislative ideas. Sanders will most certainly empower the Fed to continue their harmful, wasteful hyper-inflationary policies (which ultimately give a lot of blame to other dignitaries). Contrary to popular opinion regarding the causes of the Great Depression, any student of U.S. economic history will understand the central government was the largest cause of turning a moderate recession into a depression. You have the constant bickering over power between New York and Washington's Fed branches leading to a collapse in structure and a downward-spiraling deflationary policy (during a time of great economic growth...the evidence proves that the Great Depression was caused by the contraction of the money supply by the Federal Reserve). On top of that, the depression was deeply exacerbated and exported to the rest of the world due to extremely xenophobic protectionist policies that greatly reduced trade by placing a 400% increase on tariffs. So, the Fed largely caused the Great Depression by limiting the amount of money by 1/3 during a time of extended growth. Now, the Fed creates an intensely politically-charged marketplace where high-risk loans and mortgages (not to mention big oil spills) are guaranteed a bailout by the good ol' busybodies in Washington. Bernie Sanders is the pinnacle of central planning, corporatism, and empowering the highest authorities of government to keep screwing up as they do...and to keep bailing out the institutions that fail.
 

Gabriel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 14, 2010
Messages
1,019
Reaction score
118
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Wow! I never would have guessed that this thread would be about Sander's ideas regarding the Fed. I was most certain it would be influenced by Ron Paul's legislative ideas. Sanders will most certainly empower the Fed to continue their harmful, wasteful hyper-inflationary policies (which ultimately give a lot of blame to other dignitaries). Contrary to popular opinion regarding the causes of the Great Depression, any student of U.S. economic history will understand the central government was the largest cause of turning a moderate recession into a depression. You have the constant bickering over power between New York and Washington's Fed branches leading to a collapse in structure and a downward-spiraling deflationary policy (during a time of great economic growth...the evidence proves that the Great Depression was caused by the contraction of the money supply by the Federal Reserve). On top of that, the depression was deeply exacerbated and exported to the rest of the world due to extremely xenophobic protectionist policies that greatly reduced trade by placing a 400% increase on tariffs. So, the Fed largely caused the Great Depression by limiting the amount of money by 1/3 during a time of extended growth. Now, the Fed creates an intensely politically-charged marketplace where high-risk loans and mortgages (not to mention big oil spills) are guaranteed a bailout by the good ol' busybodies in Washington. Bernie Sanders is the pinnacle of central planning, corporatism, and empowering the highest authorities of government to keep screwing up as they do...and to keep bailing out the institutions that fail.

Did you ever think.. why is it they can't audit the fed? It's because it is not government. That means it is a private enterprise and your arguing for regulation of a private enterprise .. weird for libertarians to ask for that. It is not accountable to your elected representatives.
 

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Did you ever think.. why is it they can't audit the fed? It's because it is not government. That means it is a private enterprise and your arguing for regulation of a private enterprise .. weird for libertarians to ask for that. It is not accountable to your elected representatives.

Are you crazy? The Federal Reserve is the largest central bank in the United States. It oversees all other banks and essentially dictates our monetary policy. The only privatized section of the Federal Reserve System are the various smaller banks that own required amounts of non-transferable stock in their regional Fed banks. Where on earth did you get the idea that the Federal Reserve is private?
 

Gabriel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 14, 2010
Messages
1,019
Reaction score
118
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Are you crazy? The Federal Reserve is the largest central bank in the United States. It oversees all other banks and essentially dictates our monetary policy. The only privatized section of the Federal Reserve System are the various smaller banks that own required amounts of non-transferable stock in their regional Fed banks. Where on earth did you get the idea that the Federal Reserve is private?

Take some notes on the history of banking before you go on.

[video=google;-466210540567002553]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-466210540567002553#docid=-4020719354420953428[/video]
 

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Take some notes on the history of banking before you go on.

[video=google;-466210540567002553]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-466210540567002553#docid=-4020719354420953428[/video]


I've actually seen this video before you posted it. I have many comments:

1) I agree with much, if not most, of Rothbard's ideas however I strongly hesitate going back to the Gold or Silver standard. The protection and acquisition (usually by governmental force) of specie was the backbone of the mercantile economic system. I don't think anyone wants to go back to a world driven by the forced acquisition of gold.
2) The documentary begins with a doomsday prediction that the world is now sh*t, let's have a cigarette. I strongly believe this a societal myth. The good times are not behind us, as every media pundit and politician claim. The only concept of a "race to the bottom" is one where individuals collectively gather to instill fear and uncertainty in the lives of everyone! There's a great book I want to refer you to but I can't think of the name of the top of my head. It was an economist who argued that we should measure the standard of living based on the expense of time that is required to increase purchasing power. In other words, how many hours did the average man or woman have to work in the 1980's in order to acquire a cell phone? As we free up more time in our lives to pursue leasurely interests, we increase the collective standard of living.
3) I assert that your argument regarding the privatized nature of the central bank is shallow. I think you're just scrounging for a technicality that will prove this shallow argument. It takes an extreme stretch of the imagination to actually consider the Fed a PRIVATE bank. If they have always been used by the most powerful people in the world to ensure domestic and foreign policies are enacted as they find necessary, it is ridiculous to seriously consider the bank private when it is the government's bank.
4) I'd have to say I am libertarian lite. Even Milton Friedman argued that the Fed is the cause of big problems, but we can fix those problems without completely dismantling the system. The responsibility of printing and engraving, after all, is written into the constitution as a federal obligation and it makes sense to have a unified, central money supply. However, there should be strict limits to what the government employees can do in order to push policy or deceive the public.
 

Gabriel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 14, 2010
Messages
1,019
Reaction score
118
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
I've actually seen this video before you posted it. I have many comments:

1) I agree with much, if not most, of Rothbard's ideas however I strongly hesitate going back to the Gold or Silver standard. The protection and acquisition (usually by governmental force) of specie was the backbone of the mercantile economic system. I don't think anyone wants to go back to a world driven by the forced acquisition of gold.
2) The documentary begins with a doomsday prediction that the world is now sh*t, let's have a cigarette. I strongly believe this a societal myth. The good times are not behind us, as every media pundit and politician claim. The only concept of a "race to the bottom" is one where individuals collectively gather to instill fear and uncertainty in the lives of everyone! There's a great book I want to refer you to but I can't think of the name of the top of my head. It was an economist who argued that we should measure the standard of living based on the expense of time that is required to increase purchasing power. In other words, how many hours did the average man or woman have to work in the 1980's in order to acquire a cell phone? As we free up more time in our lives to pursue leasurely interests, we increase the collective standard of living.
3) I assert that your argument regarding the privatized nature of the central bank is shallow. I think you're just scrounging for a technicality that will prove this shallow argument. It takes an extreme stretch of the imagination to actually consider the Fed a PRIVATE bank. If they have always been used by the most powerful people in the world to ensure domestic and foreign policies are enacted as they find necessary, it is ridiculous to seriously consider the bank private when it is the government's bank.
4) I'd have to say I am libertarian lite. Even Milton Friedman argued that the Fed is the cause of big problems, but we can fix those problems without completely dismantling the system. The responsibility of printing and engraving, after all, is written into the constitution as a federal obligation and it makes sense to have a unified, central money supply. However, there should be strict limits to what the government employees can do in order to push policy or deceive the public.

Fixing the system requires regulation which is something that libertarians and republicans seem to deny is appropriate. This is rationalised via methodological individualism and free market radicalism. The economic collapse was actually founded on the idea that traders would observe matters taking into account exterior matters, like for example their trading houses reputation .. etc but the theory failed miserably with derivatives that were bets on the housing market bubble. Take a more critical eye libertarianism and its faults stand out. I want you to know I think this is a reasonable response and very thoughtful at that despite being contrary you are cordial, which is a nice change of pace. Not only that you are able to empathise and see other perspectives.

./bow
 

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Fixing the system requires regulation which is something that libertarians and republicans seem to deny is appropriate. This is rationalised via methodological individualism and free market radicalism. The economic collapse was actually founded on the idea that traders would observe matters taking into account exterior matters, like for example their trading houses reputation .. etc but the theory failed miserably with derivatives that were bets on the housing market bubble. Take a more critical eye libertarianism and its faults stand out. I want you to know I think this is a reasonable response and very thoughtful at that despite being contrary you are cordial, which is a nice change of pace. Not only that you are able to empathise and see other perspectives.

./bow

Thanks for the friendly response.

Libertarians are often confused with anarchists or are somehow labeled with the word, fundamentalist. Very few human beings are fundamentalist in their approach. Those who are are quite scary. Libertarians are probably the most diverse political party. However, I am not an anarchist. I'm not a fundamentalist libertarian as the constitution (and history) prove that centralized authority, and certain regulations, are necessary. My bottom line, as an outspoken libertarian, is that we need less government and not more. We need more freedoms and less "protections." Bottom-up solutions have a far better track record in producing results than any usual governmental program, though there are successful government programs and regulations. In my worldview, unified communication, transportation, and monetary policy are necessary. The central government does serve a purpose, and the FDA enforced labels on my peanut butter is not why the country's envisioning bankruptcy. When it comes time to cut spending, my first target will not be the food pyramid. FDA regulations on the drugs we, as individuals, are allowed to consume is a completely different matter. Auditing the Federal Reserve is necessary, and I wouldn't mind putting my trust in the hands of Dr. No and others who are not drunk with power.
 

Gabriel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 14, 2010
Messages
1,019
Reaction score
118
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Thanks for the friendly response.

Libertarians are often confused with anarchists or are somehow labeled with the word, fundamentalist. Very few human beings are fundamentalist in their approach. Those who are are quite scary. Libertarians are probably the most diverse political party. However, I am not an anarchist. I'm not a fundamentalist libertarian as the constitution (and history) prove that centralized authority, and certain regulations, are necessary. My bottom line, as an outspoken libertarian, is that we need less government and not more. We need more freedoms and less "protections." Bottom-up solutions have a far better track record in producing results than any usual governmental program, though there are successful government programs and regulations. In my worldview, unified communication, transportation, and monetary policy are necessary. The central government does serve a purpose, and the FDA enforced labels on my peanut butter is not why the country's envisioning bankruptcy. When it comes time to cut spending, my first target will not be the food pyramid. FDA regulations on the drugs we, as individuals, are allowed to consume is a completely different matter. Auditing the Federal Reserve is necessary, and I wouldn't mind putting my trust in the hands of Dr. No and others who are not drunk with power.

Sure but which regulations are necessary and which are not? Libertarians have a bad habit of rejecting all regulatory means. There are G8 countries that avoided the economic collapse because their financial markets were regulated.. heavily. What do you think of that? Is that Marxist?
 
Top Bottom