"End the Fed" by Ron Paul.

[tommieharris91]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/32881898/

Seriously, Ron. When you put out one-sided crap like this I like you less and less. It's too bad though. I think you're cool when it comes to social issues.

Discuss.

Ohh and if you want an unbiased way to learn about the Fed, here's the Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_reserve_bank). It's very long, but it's also full of both vindicating and damning evidence discussing our Federal Reserve Bank.

[Frozen Sooner]

There's a big piece by Ron Paul on this very topic assigned for one of my classes.

[SicEmBaylor]

You may admire his social politics more than his economic politics, but he wouldn't be ideologically consistent. The great thing about Ron Paul is that he doesn't use some totally arbitrary basis for determining his position on this issue or that issue. He has a strong and consistent ideology and his individual positions on issues come from that ideology and not from an independent evaluation of each issue as if it existed in a vacuum. I'm the same way, and it's what I love about Ron Paul.

[SoonerKnight]

Ron is right! The Fed is crap and essentially has taken the power out of Congresses hands and therefore the peoples hands. Also, research how the income tax amendment came about you'll find that this happened at the same time that the Fed came into existence and you'll find out some big players like JD Rockefeller were all for taxing us poor folk! Rich pay the most taxes my hairy *** they do! They can kiss it!

[SicEmBaylor]

Theoretically, I agree with Ron Paul about the Fed. The problem is, and I'm not sure how to explain this, I'm somewhat terrified of the results if the Fed was eliminated. It's like sleeping with your g/f's hot sister -- theoretically you really want to but the repercussions give you serious pause.

[tommieharris91]

Ron is right! The Fed is crap and essentially has taken the power out of Congresses hands and therefore the peoples hands. Also, research how the income tax amendment came about you'll find that this happened at the same time that the Fed came into existence and you'll find out some big players like JD Rockefeller were all for taxing us poor folk! Rich pay the most taxes my hairy *** they do! They can kiss it!

A quick Wiki says...


The federal government of the United States imposes a progressive tax on the taxable income of individuals, partnerships, companies, corporations, trusts, decedents' estates, and certain bankruptcy estates. Some state and municipal governments also impose income taxes. The first Federal income tax was imposed (under Article I, section 8, clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution) during the Civil War, then again in the 1890s, and again after the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified in 1913. Current income taxes are imposed under these constitutional provisions and various sections of Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, including 26 U.S.C. § 1 (imposing income tax on the taxable income of individuals, estates and trusts) and 26 U.S.C. § 11 (imposing income tax on the taxable income of corporations).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States

So there is some truth to your statement.

I'm sure there are a lot of other people here who would disagree with your assertion that the poor pay the most taxes in the US, though. I've heard countless Pubs state here that "99% of the taxes are paid by 1% of the people" or whatever it is (which is somewhat true).

[tommieharris91]

You may admire his social politics more than his economic politics, but he wouldn't be ideologically consistent. The great thing about Ron Paul is that he doesn't use some totally arbitrary basis for determining his position on this issue or that issue. He has a strong and consistent ideology and his individual positions on issues come from that ideology and not from an independent evaluation of each issue as if it existed in a vacuum. I'm the same way, and it's what I love about Ron Paul.

His biggest problem with this isn't just wrote in an above post, it's more that his solution is even more logically inconsistent than the current system. Any form of currency control based on tying a currency to an asset is, at is simplest form, a price fix. Price fixing is about as inconsistent with free market economics as it gets. If our money were to be tied to gold as Paul advocates, there would not be any market that sets the price of gold. What if a new use for gold were found which drove the price up 1.2x overnight? The Treasury would be faced with a nasty decision, which consists of:

A) Selling the gold at the new price, causing economy-debilitating deflation?
or
B) Reset the price of gold, causing overnight hyperinflation?

Scenarios where the dollar would have to be defended by speculators would happen every time the real value of gold is inconsistent with the price. Keeping the price of gold fixed would take easily as much government interference in the market as our current system, maybe more. This is also what killed the Bretton Woods system.

Ultimately, I'm not sure any libertarian can be for currency. All current and past scenarios where a government uses currency as a store of wealth give that government a toolbox which grants incredible control over its economy. A true libertarian can only favor a system of bartering if that person wants to be truly consistent with his other ideologies.

[Oldnslo]

Politics aside, what does Sic know about sleeping with one's girlfriend's hot sister?

[mdklatt]

It's like sleeping with your g/f's hot sister

Throwing out purely hypothetical situations that would never happen in a million years doesn't help your argument.

:D

[Frozen Sooner]

His biggest problem with this isn't just wrote in an above post, it's more that his solution is even more logically inconsistent than the current system. Any form of currency control based on tying a currency to an asset is, at is simplest form, a price fix. Price fixing is about as inconsistent with free market economics as it gets. If our money were to be tied to gold as Paul advocates, there would not be any market that sets the price of gold. What if a new use for gold were found which drove the price up 1.2x overnight? The Treasury would be faced with a nasty decision, which consists of:

A) Selling the gold at the new price, causing economy-debilitating deflation?
or
B) Reset the price of gold, causing overnight hyperinflation?

Scenarios where the dollar would have to be defended by speculators would happen every time the real value of gold is inconsistent with the price. Keeping the price of gold fixed would take easily as much government interference in the market as our current system, maybe more. This is also what killed the Bretton Woods system.

Ultimately, I'm not sure any libertarian can be for currency. All current and past scenarios where a government uses currency as a store of wealth give that government a toolbox which grants incredible control over its economy. A true libertarian can only favor a system of bartering if that person wants to be truly consistent with his other ideologies.

Well, it can be consistent with the abolishment of federal reserve notes and allowing banks to issue their own currency again.

(I'm not saying it's a good idea, but I think that's where Paul wants to go.)

[Chuck Bao]

This is just plain crazy talk, in my opinion.

Ron Paul may have an audience for his new book and it will probably sell very well given that so many people are now angry and disillusioned.

The Fed is indeed partly or mainly responsible for the current economic / financial crisis through its cheap money policies. Abolishing the Fed now would be a complete disaster. According to that article (link above), it seems that cutting off the funding to the Fed is a long-term goal, despite the name of his book. His immediate goal is to “educate” Americans and gain support for his house bill to audit the Fed.

His ideas, in my opinion, are very wrong and dangerous.

• The fact is that we now live in a complex, interconnected global economy. If the US goes on the gold standard, China will as well. China has 2 trillion dollars in foreign reserves and can justifiably and effectively fix its currency to the US and permanently perpetuate its trade advantage.

• Economic management should NEVER be completely in the hands of the politicians. If you think that the Fed mismanaged the economy over the last eight years, just wait until the politicians get to control not only fiscal policy, as they do now, but also monetary policy. The audit bill is a very bad idea. Transparency is already provided by the Fed chairman’s high profile and televised question-and-answer session in front of congressional committees. Considering the grandstanding and ill-timed criticism of our elected officials, I would put more faith in the bureaucrats at the Fed.

• A strong central bank is needed to counter highly inefficient and volatile markets. I know many currency, money market and stock market traders. They like volatility. They like ganging up for the kill and short-term profits. They don’t give a flip about the effects of volatility on the real business sector.

• The “End the Fed” book is grandstanding in the highest order. As far as I can tell, his ideas are outdated and not at all applicable to our present circumstance. Maybe, he is doing a service in bringing out an important national debate. Still, I strongly believe that monetary policy should not be left to the vagrancies of either politicians or fickle market forces.

[Scott D]

Ron is right! The Fed is crap and essentially has taken the power out of Congresses hands and therefore the peoples hands. Also, research how the income tax amendment came about you'll find that this happened at the same time that the Fed came into existence and you'll find out some big players like JD Rockefeller were all for taxing us poor folk! Rich pay the most taxes my hairy *** they do! They can kiss it!

Why in the name of god would anyone on this planet want to put more power in the hands of Congress? I'm surprised that collection of brainless jackasses can wipe their asses without a wet nurse present.