Abolish the Fed

[floridarocks]

Can someone please explain why we should not abolish the Federal Reserve or explain why lawyers won't discuss the bankruptcy of the corporate US in 1933 the keeps us perpetually indebted to the international bankers. How rich are those Rothschilds anyway? Is there such a thing as kazillion?

[spoosman]

Yep, it's been worked over, and you're still wrong.

[Nick Danger]

I assume others are aware, for example, that there are many efficient ways to facilitate the transfer of capital from bona fide savers to bona fide investors.

Yeah, when that happens we usually let the market decide. After several hundred years of trial-and-error by people competing with each other to work the kinks out, we have arrived at today's banking system.

It still has kinks, but the first several hundred years' worth of mistakes have already been made and fixed.

We await your new and improved design with bated breath.

[Deuce]

Nick has problems making distinctions that others generally have no problem making. Earlier, in this thread, for example, he concluded that criticism of someone with a Jewish name is anti-semetic. Now he concludes that one who opposes governmental force used on behalf of one class of citizens at the expense of another is Marxist. In case it isn't already abundantly clear to others:

Nick favors a central planner called the Fed that makes important decisions in secret. (what form of government does that sound like?)

Deuce favors the abolition of such centralized power in favor of the free market.

[Deuce]

After several hundred years of trial-and-error by people competing with each other to work the kinks out, we have arrived at today's banking system.

Nick takes the definition of conservative to a ludicrous, self-contradictory level:

Whatever exists now has to be the best it can possibly be because it has been changing for the better up until now. Huh?

[Nick Danger]

Earlier, in this thread, for example, he concluded that criticism of someone with a Jewish name is anti-semetic.

It is an easily-observable fact (run a Google search on "who owns" "Federal Reserve") that the Web is home to dozens of sites that promote the proposition that the Federal Reserve is owned by Jews and is part of a larger conspiracy by Jews to Rule Ze Vorld. Sometimes they are European Jews, sometimes a mixture of American and European Jews. Sometimes they are listed:

The major share holders in the Federal Reserve Banks are: Rothschild families of London and Berlin; Israel Seiff of Italy; Kuhn-Loeb Company (Germany); Warburg families of Humburg, Amsterdam, Netherlands; Rockefellers of New York and Goldman-Sacks [sic] of New York.

That list is from a kookburger site called theseventhtrumpet.org, but the same crap is repeated endlessly on dozens of other sites. Backing up to the home page of such sites almost always leads to a page decrying all the horrible things that Jews are doing: Jews dominate the media, Jews dominate the banks, they even dominate late-night comedy. We get characters like Sherman Skolnick. We get links to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Free Republic does not need to be linked to this stuff. We have political enemies, and they do indeed comb through our threads looking for things they can use against us. This is not speculation, it has happened.

Do not try to sell the proposition that there are not serious anti-Semites involved in this anti-Fed crusade. It is trivially easy to find dozens of them with a search engine. It is also trivially easy to construct an argument against fiat money, central banks, or the Federal Reserve in particular, without dragging references to Jews into it.

My 'conclusion' is that dragging material from virulently anti-Semitic kookburger sites into our forum, and presenting it as "truth," harms our forum, and exposes us to media hit pieces that discredit everything we do.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Nick,
You continually do a marvelous job of debunking the economic illiteracy that gets dragged through here. Thank you and God bless.
LL

[Nick Danger]

Deuce favors the abolition of such centralized power in favor of the free market.

Deuce says that, but that's not what he's dragging in here. He's encouraging people to read a book that promotes class struggle by labor against capital (it doesn't use those words, but that's what it is), distrust of "financial elites" who in fact are just salaried employees of institutions that happen to be banks instead of hamburger chains, and a reliance on specie currency that turns control of a unified, worldwide money supply over to countries that happen to have large gold reserves... like Russia and South Africa.

He's like the magician who waves capitalism and free markets in his right hand in order to distract you from what his left hand is doing.

[Deuce]

Your logic is as follows:

Some people who criticize Jews are anti-semitic, therefore anyone who criticizes a person of Jewish heritage must also be anti-semitic.

Now I can put your critique of my posiion in perspective:

Marx believes one class benefits at the expense of the other; Anyone who believes any class benefits unfairly at the expense of another, must also be a Marxist.

Using this logic, someone who opposes racial quotas is a Marxist!

[Poohbah]

If the press were more responsible, there would be no need to worry about them pulling things out of context.

They aren't ever going to get more responsible, which means WE have to be VERY responsible. Deal with it.

[Deuce]

If your comments were meant to be facetious, never mind. Otherwise:

Your name must be a parody, because the position I take is the position taken by the late, great LIBERTARIAN economist, Murray Rothbard. Also, the pov that started this thread was from Ron Paul---with whom I agree---who was a past Libertarian candidate for President and is now a Republican Congressman who has made favorable promotional comments for the book that I refered to that started this discussion:

Special Privilege

[Deuce]

Correction, Ron Paul started the other thread I'm currently contributing to about myths about gold.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Your name must be a parody, because the position I take is the position taken by the late, great LIBERTARIAN economist, Murray Rothbard.

Well, maybe I'm not the most frumm [Yiddish: strictly pious] libertarian, but I don't see anything "libertarian" about peddling a bunch of discredited theories about how evil international bankers are controlling our money through unaudited institutions controlled by the Rothschilds.

[Deuce]

I don't see anything "libertarian" about peddling a bunch of discredited theories about how evil international bankers are controlling our money through unaudited institutions controlled by the Rothschilds.

Neither do I.

The executive summary of my position, the Intro to the book, Special Privilege (see post 59), makes no reference to evil, international banker, or the Rothschilds in the intro or anywhere throughout the book (Having the book in pdf form, I just did a search for those terms).

The book does make over 50 references to "free enterprise" or "capitalism" ---each one of which is positive.

It makes none to "Marxism." Nick is ein bissel verrict (phonetic)

[Deuce]

Why did FDR confiscate peoples' gold?

You see, FDR was a good man, and he "knew" that gold was just a barbarous relic, so he didn't want us to be fooled into thinking it was anything but a barbarous relic, so to save us from ourselves, and in order to protect the value of our money, he first had to confiscate it.

They told some people how sophisticated and savvy they were to reject gold-as-money (that technique works well with some people, right Nick?). Paradoxically, however, they proudly displayed how much of the shiny barbarous stuff they had to visitors at Ft. Knox and the NY Fed.

Since central banks hold about 25% of all the gold ever mined and bullion banks have an additional 5% and since it is a barbarous relic, the only explaination I can come up with is that they must be hording it to protect us from wasting our time owning the stuff, ourselves. It's for our own good.

sarcasm off

[Deuce]

Why did FDR confiscate peoples gold?

After turning the sarcasm off, I forgot to give the real answer:

Because if they didn't, they would have had none left themselves as people demanded gold redemption from the crashing, inherently unsound fractional reserve banking system. Today we have a fractional reserve system built upon paper dollars (only about 1% of total promised). If, in some future crisis, people start demanding the paper when only 1% exists they will have two choices: 1.) refuse to honor bank account balances with paper dollars; or, 2.) print them, thereby, proving Voltaire right once again, "Paper money always returns to its intrinsic value, zero."

sarcasm back on.

Of course, you'll have the Nick's of the world telling you not to want the barbarous paper when the electronic form is "just as good". Ironically, at this point, they would actually be right! Except "just as bad" would be more reflectrive of the sorry reality.