Posted on 10/22/2010 1:31:48 AM PDT by citizenredstater9271
Rothbard's account of the origins of the Federal Reserve. You MUST watch this. All Americans need to know how the FED is not only unconstitutional but also destroying our economy.
Privately held? Then why do they give about 90% of their earnings each year to the Treasury?
That claim is clearly wrong.
More Beers has it exactly right. The 2001 dollar was worth 4% of the 1913 dollar - and even less today. God help us!
About what? Be specific.
The 2001 dollar was worth 4% of the 1913 dollar
You're right. So what?
You really should do a bit research on the Fed.
What do you imagine you know that I do not?
The National Debt was up five times by 1918 and up by ten times in 1919. Yes that was influenced by the war but the debt did not go down that much after the war was over and it shot up again in 1931.
The Federal Reserve doesn't "bring on debt". That'd be Congress.
Oh yes it does. Creation of the Fed greatly increased the power of big banks by consolidated them into a giant national cartel. However, the income tax and the Federal Reserve were not the only monsters born in 1913. The Seventeenth Amendment was ratified in the same year. That made Senators have to run for election instead of receiving appointment by the states.
Winning elections requires large amounts of cash and, then as now, bankers are the primary source of campaign money. Since 1913, the Senate has depended on bankers just as the House of Representatives. Any disobedience results in campaign money going to the opponent in the next election.
It is easy to prove that Congress favors bankers over the people. If Congress does not collect enough tax to pay for its budget, it has the authority to loan itself money at zero interest. Instead, Congress pays high interest to borrow money that the Fed cartel creates ultimately from nothing by fractional reserve. (The system has become international so that about half of the loans now come from Fed partners overseas.)
There is no absolutely no reason for Congress to pay interest on borrowed money but it does so to the impoverishment of the people and the unearned enrichment of bankers. Congress is simply a stick-up man robbing the people on behalf of the domestic Fed and international banking cartel.
Yeah, war debt has nothing to do with the Fed.
Creation of the Fed greatly increased the power of big banks by consolidated them into a giant national cartel.
If you say so.
However, the income tax and the Federal Reserve were not the only monsters born in 1913. The Seventeenth Amendment was ratified in the same year
Again, so what?
If Congress does not collect enough tax to pay for its budget, it has the authority to loan itself money at zero interest.
LOL! You have some strange ideas.
Run thru it for me, how would that work?
Instead, Congress pays high interest to borrow money that the Fed cartel creates ultimately from nothing by fractional reserve.
You need to differentiate between the Fed (the central bank) and the rest of the banks in the country.
Which bank(s) are you talking about when you make this claim?
There is no absolutely no reason for Congress to pay interest on borrowed money
Sure there is. If I buy a T-Bill, I expect to earn interest.
However, the income tax and the Federal Reserve were not the only monsters born in 1913. The Seventeenth Amendment was ratified in the same year
Again, so what?
The Senate became dependent upon campaign funds from the banks whereas before, they were directly appointed by the states.
If Congress does not collect enough tax to pay for its budget, it has the authority to loan itself money at zero interest.
LOL! You have some strange ideas. Run thru it for me, how would that work?
Much the same as it works for the Fed cartel banks. Congress would create a deposit account, make a ledger entry for the amount required, and legislate this money as legal tender for the payment of taxes and debt. Congress legislated Fed money to be legal tender, so it could do the same for interest-free money.
Then the Treasury would write checks on the interest-free account as authorized. Of course inflation would result if the interest-free funds increased the money supply faster than the rate economic growth. However, the same limitation applies to money created by the Fed and if Congress stopped borrowing at interest, the Fed could stop inflating on its end.
With the interest-free money, Congress could finally pay down the debt while providing the currency needed for economic growth free of interest-bearing debt.
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law....
All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
Congress would create a deposit account, make a ledger entry for the amount required, and legislate this money as legal tender for the payment of taxes and debt.
Congress can't do that.
LOL. Why not? And even if not, Congress could certainly grant the power to do this to some other entity like it did to the Fed.
Do you understand how legislation is passed in this country?
And even if not, Congress could certainly grant the power to do this to some other entity like it did to the Fed.
See my previous question.
On what ledger do you think Congress would make such an entry?
Congress either borrows money by instructing the Treasury to sell bonds, or it enacts taxes to raise money. It can’t simply “make ledger entries”.
More to the point, when the Fed “makes a ledger entry” at a member bank it is usually purchasing a Treasury bill from that bank. Although TARP broadened that mandate to include all sorts of debt.
Excellent point about the direct election of Senators. It was a very bad idea, a seed of corruption.
Do not get lost in the mechanics to miss the forest for the trees. Currently, Congress indirectly creates the money it needs through the currency emition power it granted to the Fed and its members. The Fed system creates money from thin air by ledger entry. Government receives the Fed money as payment for interest-bearing Treasury bonds. Instead of this indirect route, government could create its money directly as it did under Lincoln and during colonial times.
Right now, the government essentially makes a ledger entry of interest-bearing debt when it creates bonds. Congress could authorize the creation of the cash instead of bonds for the amount it needs. The government could print out this money as greenbacks or, better yet, just hold the money in a checking account. Checks drawn on the account could be cashed or deposited at private banks. The government funds would transfer by the normal bank process of ledger deduction and addition.
There is no legitimate reason to continue paying interest on money borrowed into existence from thin air. That interest is unearned since no work is performed and no previously-existing capital is forgone.
Apparently from your perspective, I do not. How is Congress prevented from authorizing the creation of money instead of bonds?
Why should the government sell you a bond at interest when it can create its own money at zero interest?
The part I left out from The Creature from Jekyll Island;
"By the late 1750s Connecticut had price inflated by 800%, the Carolinas had inflated 900%, Massachusetts 1000%, Rhode Island 2300%." The author, G Edward Griffin, notes that this was one of those rare instances where influence from the mother country actually benefited the colonies.
The only reason I brought up the subject however was the speed of recovery. Unfortunately, there is no mother country and no stockpiles of gold and silver coins that people in this country could return to use. And the recovery from a major crash of our current monetary system will probably be extremely painful and protracted.
You're the lost one. You seem to think Congress currently has to power to create money in order to cover a deficit. It does not.
Even before there was a 17th amendment more than half the states were directly electing their senators. In fact, the number of states doing so nearly reached the point where an Article V convention would have been necessary. That’s why Congress needed to act. A constitutional convention would have been much worse than mandatory direct election of Senators.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.