• 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!

Is it time to separate Banks and government?

How did that work out in 2008/2009? Not that good...

When you say, "How did that work out", by "that" you can't possibly be referring to my suggestion. You can possibly think that anything I suggest is in any way being implemented now or in 2008, can you?

The government doesn't, as I suggest, simply enforce contracts between depositors, banks, borrowers, lenders, etc. It interferes in myriad ways in the banking industry.

And how did THAT work out in 2008/2009?
 
So the Federal Reserve system did not exist in 2008/2009? What Federalist is saying should be is not what is or what has been. What are you talking about?

My questions have related to not trusting the Treasury nor the Fed to oversee the monetary policy and that the Fed facilitates payments within our banking system. I'm not sure what your point might be...
 
My questions have related to not trusting the Treasury nor the Fed to oversee the monetary policy and that the Fed facilitates payments within our banking system. I'm not sure what your point might be...
Federalist said government should just enforce contracts, and that's how the financial sector should be regulated. Your comment "how did that work for you" is irrelevant, because the system Federalist was advocating for was not the system in place in 2008/2009.
 
The difference is that they now create the same "money" under the same rules...
What? How are you listing a difference by saying the create the same money under the same rules?
 
I would suggest researching the causes of recessions/depressions that occurred before the Fed was created. Banks used to create their own currency (I have some as a collector's item), and honoring that currency was not guaranteed by other banks. Do you have any concern now that this might happen?
Actually, laws in the past did require banks to honor the notes of other banks. Not sure what your point is though.
 
How did that work out in 2008/2009? Not that good...

BTW, earlier I asked what else, other than enforcement of contracts, you thought needed to be done to allow for banks to operate. What sort of additional special law do you think are necessary and why?
 
Banks and government already are separate. The Federal Reserve is private, and it was a horrible mistake to privatize it.

The opposite needs to happen. We should have a central bank under the purview of the People, via our elected officials. No more clandestine money handling by financial elites who are working against this country's economy.

I tentatively agree with a central bank that lends based on the goal of encouraging small businesses and income growth at the lower brackets. I don't know about giving such a bank power to affect money supply. We really don't want the likes of Ron Paul deciding monetary policy.

The Fed at least has a buffer between the likes of Paul and its policies. If Congress wants to politicize monetary decisions, it would have to change the Federal Reserve Act, which to my mind was one of the most enlightened and successful pieces of legislation this country ever passed.
 
I tentatively agree with a central bank that lends based on the goal of encouraging small businesses and income growth at the lower brackets. I don't know about giving such a bank power to affect money supply. We really don't want the likes of Ron Paul deciding monetary policy.

The Fed at least has a buffer between the likes of Paul and its policies. If Congress wants to politicize monetary decisions, it would have to change the Federal Reserve Act, which to my mind was one of the most enlightened and successful pieces of legislation this country ever passed.

All western nations, except the U.S., have central banks. They are effective so long as globalists don't start transferring public money to private coffers; but seeing as how that is happening in the U.S. anyway, I don't think a central bank increases the risk.
 
All western nations, except the U.S., have central banks. They are effective so long as globalists don't start transferring public money to private coffers; but seeing as how that is happening in the U.S. anyway, I don't think a central bank increases the risk.

It's true, and I'm not against a central bank. I think the difference is that even the "conservatives" in Europe are rational and want a modern economy. In the US we have tea partiers and conservative movement that includes freakish, antimodernist knownothings like Ron "Gold Standard" Paul and Michele "Intelligent Design" Bachmann. I don't want them within 2000 miles of monetary policy. And under a central banking system, they would always only be an election away.
 
Any major change of the financial system would be near impossible to accomplish.... the banks have too much control over our bureaucrats, and it would be hard to gain public support because quite frankly the average citizen isn't an expert on this stuff. I bet a large percentage of the country has no idea what the fed even does, this stuff unfortunately doesn't fire many people up like the gun debate does for example.... no pun intended.
 
Back
Top Bottom