America's greatest heist: The creation of the Federal Reserve (short video)
Posted by Anen-o-me@reddit | Libertarian | View on Reddit | 108 comments
Posted by Anen-o-me@reddit | Libertarian | View on Reddit | 108 comments
ikonoqlast@reddit
As an economist I have to point out that governments tried not having central banks for centuries. It didn't work.
The Fed is absolutely a necessary government function (if you don't want to live in poverty ..)
thetruthisnowhere13@reddit
YOU are part of the problem!!
bridgeton_man@reddit
how come?
ikonoqlast@reddit
So you think someone who has studied this at an advanced level and understands how things work is a 'problem'?
thetruthisnowhere13@reddit
Oh wise Keynsian! Tell us how the Fed has funded a century of war, presided over the biggest recessions, and significantly reduced the purchasing power of the dollar. All for the benefit of society I'm sure!
bridgeton_man@reddit
DO you actually know that the previous guy is a Keynesian? Because, AFAIK, the "schools of thought" have mostly been dead for around 50 years. We live in the era of big data now.
Or did you just mean "I dislike this guy's POV".
thetruthisnowhere13@reddit
They are claiming to have been educated at graduate school in econ which is extremely likely to be Keynsian, or taught by Keynsian sympathizers. Almost every economist in this country has been brainwashed a heavy dose of Keynsian nonsense. Also spouting off tons of Keynsian BS kind of fits the bill. DO you know which subreddit we're in?
bridgeton_man@reddit
So, your whole evidence is "this guy went to school".
Correct?
Meh.... for all you know, this guy might be a Chicago-school guy (like myself), or belong to no school whatsoever (like MOST economists these days).
So... he said something about employment, growth, and interest-rates being interrelated, you say?
Got anything more serious?
ikonoqlast@reddit
Great Depression was a function of the Fed NOT doing its job because people with your beliefs.
Central banks are and we're not responsible for Hitler...
Central banks are why covid didn't cause the world wide depression were not in...
RealNinjafoxtrot@reddit
We didn't go into a depression because money was printed. If your education can justify that then i don't know what to tell you, mate. Inflation is not a good thing. There is never an instance where it's ok.
ikonoqlast@reddit
There's always countering an exogenous fall in V so Q doesn't fall...
Anen-o-me@reddit (OP)
"Studied" is a strong term, you were successfully brainwashed into the status quo economic dogma.
ikonoqlast@reddit
Much like physicians are brainwashed into the "germ theory of disease" dogma...
Anen-o-me@reddit (OP)
That analogy doesn't carry over, no. Germs are a provable fact of nature. Economic policy is entirely contingent and normative.
You just lost a lot of credibility making such a dumb analogy.
CanadaMoose47@reddit
Can you expand on the ways in which it didn't work? And how the fed keeps us out of poverty?
I'm interested in understanding it better.
ikonoqlast@reddit
Fundamental identity is
MV == PQ.
Money times Velocity is identical to Prices time Quantity (GDP).
Q is what matters. We want it to go up but it will only increase so fast. It can easily go down.
P goes up easily but down is very hard.
M goes up easily but down is also very hard. The easiest way to lower M (and P) is for a country to replace its entire money supply with new currency with fewer zeroes.
V can do anything (up or down) and is primarily a function of people's actions. A central bank can affect this but not control it.
So .. stuff is happening.
With the Fed-
V is changing in response to what's happening and what people think will happen. The Fed does what it can to keep V (and M) stable. P stays stable. Q stays stable.
Without the Fed-
V is doing whatever, uncontrolled. Exogenous changes in M (gold typically, or as I like to call it- magic rocks) are also happening. When V rises P rises in response. Q doesn't change.
When V falls... P doesn't fall. It won't. (Actually it will in time but it's slow and painful) Q falls instead. So what we have is the boom and bust economy of the 19th century.
Steady growth is better than boom and bust. Boom growth rates without the inflation and no busts. Fiat currency has the advantage of not being subject to exogenous changes. And a central bank willfully manipulating V can smooth or eliminate booms and busts.
CanadaMoose47@reddit
I appreciate it.
Seems to me like central banks are very afraid of deflation, but I have always found this strange.
Sure deflation is bad for people with debt, but it's great for savers. Just as inflation is vice versa.
Is deflation bad, simply because we have chosen the path of relying heavily on debt?
As a frugal, risk averse saver, it has always felt like economists and the Fed would prefer I took out a big loan to buy things I can't afford.
bridgeton_man@reddit
The logic of that lies in what the response of financial markets would be (the market is 50% fiduciary investors. And these are guys who are contractually obligated to seek gains and to AVOID deliberately putting their money into investments which would reduce in value over time. Or else, they'd 100% risk being sued by their investors).
Keep in mind that Y = C+I+X+G.
Basically nobody wants to end up like Japan did during their 30-year long deflationary recession.
CanadaMoose47@reddit
I think fiduciary responsibility is simply about making prudent financial decisions, not "you get sued if you don't make a profit".
In a deflationary market, all investments would be decreasing so no reasonable court would find investment companies at fault for only achieving average market results.
AltruisticWishes@reddit
That's not what "fiduciary duty" means. Learn to read
bridgeton_man@reddit
Although the details and consequences differ from one jurisdiction to the next, the basic idea is that parties entrusted with investor-capital that is "other people's money", are indeed supposed to be prudent. And are generally not allowed to knowingly invest in things that will, with certainty, cause that capital to shrink.
As for getting sued by investors, that detail is specific to the anglo-sphere. (ie, USA, UK, Commonwealth). That is, for ex., outlined in the UK COLL rules, although most commonwealth countries have something in their legislation called a "trust act", which outlines that. Canada probably does, but I haven't looked at Canadian financial regulation in years, so, not sure.
Whre I live in Europe, under civil law, German-style civil law basically establishes that the veto-holding Supervisory Board can straightup oust the the Board of directors for that. Or that both boards can be immediately ousted by shareholders. But punitive damages are not a thing here to the extent that they are under common-law jurisdiction.
How banks and fiduciary investors in living memory have dealt with this, is to invest abroad. For example, during Japan's lost decades, Japan's capital got invested in Korea, Australia, HK, China, and Taiwan, rather than at home. SO much so that many asian financial markets predictably reacted to JAPANESE macroeconomic and macrofinancial news.
And all these countries got to experience investor-driven high-growth rates, while Japan saw virtually no growth for most of the lost decades.
AltruisticWishes@reddit
Deflation is chaotic and threatens an essential element of economic prosperity: consumer (and investor) confidence. You, as a "frugal, risk averse saver" won't win by seriously harming the economy.
Read economics textbooks
CanadaMoose47@reddit
Can you explain how it threatens consumer confidence? Why would prices dropping be a problem for consumers?
I'm not trying to "win" by being frugal, but if not buying things I don't need, and being prudent about how I spend my money is "seriously harming the economy" - then I think the economy is distorted at its very core.
AltruisticWishes@reddit
I never said that. Obviously.
Again, you're confusing your own individual consumer behavior with the economy as a whole.
Go read econ textbooks
CanadaMoose47@reddit
So would you say a whole economy of people being frugal and only buying what they need is a poor economy?
Does the economy require thoughtless consumerism to function well?
AltruisticWishes@reddit
Did I say that? No. Learn to fucking read
ikonoqlast@reddit
People have a rate of time preference- how much extra they need to get next year to be willing to save this year
As a consequence the expected return on investment will equal this.
Deflation means you're lowering the expected return on investment. 'Oops the machine I bought to make a million widgets still makes a million widgets but I can't sell them for as much'. To increase it to equal the rate of time preference you reduce investment (rate of return slopes down v investment). Less investment means a smaller capital stock and less output.
CanadaMoose47@reddit
I know this is the textbook answer, depreciation spiral and all that, but I have never really thought it made sense.
With all the depreciation we have seen in electronics and tech over the last 20 years, do economists view this as a problem?
ikonoqlast@reddit
It cheaper, not depreciated. There's a difference.
CanadaMoose47@reddit
Sorry, deflation not depreciation, my bad.
Would you say the deflation in smartphone technology, for example, has been to the detriment of the economy?
AltruisticWishes@reddit
That isn't deflation. Seriously, read a whole econ textbook by someone reputable. You don't understand economic growth at all.
e1i3or@reddit
It’s mainly seen as a threat because our economy is heavily reliant on debt; when prices fall, the real burden of debt rises, which can slow spending and investment. That’s why the Fed and economists often prioritize mild inflation...it helps grease the wheels of a debt-drivn system. But from a saver’s perspective, deflation protects purchasing power and rewards prudence. So yes, deflation is treated as a problem largely because it clashes with how our economy is structured, not because it’s universally harmful.
AltruisticWishes@reddit
No. Deflation's biggest risk is it seriously damages / destroys economic growth
CanadaMoose47@reddit
Thank you.
But I guess that kind of brings me to wonder - why are boom and bust cycles an issue?
Your boom may well be my bust, and your bust may well be a big boom opportunity for me.
Isn't smoothing things out with the Fed just picking winners? Isn't it essentially the way we structure the economy to favour debt reliance and leverage? Which to my eyes seems to benefit the wealthy the most.
e1i3or@reddit
Boom and bust cycles can create instability that hurts the broader economy like job losses, business failures, and long recoveries. The Fed’s goal in smoothing those cycles isn’t to pick winners, but to maintain stability and more importantly confidence so people and businesses can plan and invest.
Volatility leads to economic instability and a lack of long term investment.
Youre right that in a debt-driven system, those with better access to credit often benefit more. But any policy that wants long term GDP growth is going to want to incentivize debt over savings or you'll end up with an economy like Japan.
CanadaMoose47@reddit
That might be my issue, I don't see the strong connection to GDP growth and human well being in developed economies.
I lived in Japan for a while, and housing was affordable, consumer goods were affordable, services were abundant and affordable. It really felt better than North America where, sure GDP is up, but everyone is leveraged to the tits, and on the cusp of insolvency.
e1i3or@reddit
I think that's a reasonable position to take.
I don't think it would work with North American culture, personally. And I really don't see any alternative to central banking/fiat currency.
Even savings driven economies need central banking like Japan where they often keep interest rates absurdly low to counteract the deflationary impacts of high savings rates.
DarthFluttershy_@reddit
Under Keynesian theory, deflation is bad because it incentivizes saving over investing, which in turn suppresses consumption and business growth and produces recessionary pressure, creating a feedback loop in which falling demand reduces incomes, prompting further saving and price declines, magnifying recessionary dynamics.
This is born out in a lot of data with demand-driven deflation, but I still kinda agree. The Fed, and indeed most modern economists, act overly terrified of any and all deflation, when not all deflation is created equal. Benign deflation from, say, productivity improvements like technology are well-established, but also a brief deflation rebound after large inflation periods are probably innocuous at worst, and, so long as people do not anticipate a long-term deflationary spiral, may actually spur growth by creating a glut of expenditures and making people divest from inflationary-safe investments into more general investments.
Unfortunately, I think u/e1i3or is also correct that the government sees inflation as a long-term debt mitigator. If you cannot have the GDP outgrow the debt, you can instead inflate out of it to reduce the nominal burden... basically a secret tax on dollar-holders. There are some advantages there, especially over, say, default, but it's still a long-term problem.
Sydra7@reddit
In addition: How does the “damage” caused by natural deflation compare to the harm caused by artificial inflation through hidden taxation and forcing unnecessary risk-taking? Why can’t the market respond to its own problems on its own? Why does the state have to solve them? Everyone wants to live better. If deflation runs counter to that goal, then the market will respond to it. The state once again “solves” a problem on one side by creating twice as many problems on the other.
bridgeton_man@reddit
Anything mentioning the QTOM in this content, pretty much need to be made top comment
DarthFluttershy_@reddit
I don't expect a thesis on the quantity theory of money in a reddit thread, but I don't see why highlighting velocity is meaningful. The Fed's goal is to stabilize prices and maximize economic growth by adjusting lending rates (and no, interest rates are not a velocity analog), slowly increasing the broader money supply while using rapid adjustments to the monetary base (e.g. QE) to absorb shocks and ideally keeping the swings isolated in financial markets without feeding through into headline inflation (unlike in 2021, where they badly mispredicted the market).
Austrian criticisms of the Fed aside, the equation of exchange is not an "identity," it's just a rearrangement of the definition of velocity. So to imply that "V falls" independently, creating an effect on Q, is backwards. V reduces definitionally if economic activity slows without a compensating reduction in M (which is more or less all economic activity slowdowns, be it deflation or a reduction in consumption). Letting the far more endogenous velocity vary more has been a hallmark of Fed policy over the last couple of decades, favoring attempting to stabilize Q and P with rapid changes in monetary supply and interest rates. Yes, they like to keep the velocity constant via this balance, but it's clearly not a priority. Maybe it should be, as it was very stable during the Great Moderation, but I would not attribute this to a success or intrinsic purpose of the Fed.
Also, P absolutely falls without the Fed... indeed, ensuring P doesn't fall by adjusting M is one of the main functions of the Fed. What you mean to say is that you don't want P to fall. Sure, downward price rigidity is a thing, but it isn't nearly sufficient to prevent deflation. Look at China right now, for example. You don't see it now in most countries because central banks act to prevent it.
But it's extremely controversial that the Fed has been successful at doing so, especially outside the relatively brief Great Moderation era, which has had an undue influence on current evaluations of the Fed.
DrGarbinsky@reddit
IMO the enablement of the eternal war machine far outweighs anything you've mentioned here. Boom and Bust cycles are not a sufficient argument for fiat monetary policy. GDP is also a shitty metric as it doesn't account for fake growth from new money and will go up when only the wealthy are increasing their wealth and does nothing to measure the economic health fo the majority.
TheAlchemist1@reddit
I’d rather have natural inequality than man made. Keynesians rarely factor in human incentives. Sure a well managed central bank can operate somewhat like a thermostat on the economy. But the incentive structure that exists is to print more money to get out of every problem, it will never be well managed. Income inequality only getting worse under this current model.
The point about forever wars cannot be understated. Money printing played a major role in the brutality and length of WW1, WW2, etc, and 25 years and counting terror war, which are virtually impossible endeavors with sound money.
Would our current lifestyle change by ending the fed, certainly. But then I’d ask why you believe the path we’re on now is correct or best?
ikonoqlast@reddit
What a facile load of crap...
Oh, and I'm not a Keynesian.
You only think the Fed is bad because you have no idea how bad magic rocks were.
getalongguy@reddit
Dude... People who live in reserve, fiat houses shouldn't throw magic rocks.
I'm sure you could debate the practicality of one over the other all day. But, what you can not do is defend the Fed on moral grounds. It is fraudulent from its very inception. The mechanism it uses is fraudulent. To defend it, you must insist that the end justifies the means.
TheAlchemist1@reddit
Solid argument. You got me!
Realistic_Chip_9515@reddit
So you’re arguing that we should stop printing money as a matter of principle, so that an enemy that does resort to printing money can last longer than us and beat us in war?
ConscientiousPath@reddit
Enemies can't print our money--that's counterfeiting. They can only print their own money. And as they attempt to do so, the exchange rate moves dramatically in our favor.
TheAlchemist1@reddit
Which enemy are you referring to? Why are they our enemy?
Realistic_Chip_9515@reddit
Why does it matter? Your argument is self defeating regardless of the enemy.
TheAlchemist1@reddit
Please elaborate how it is self defeating
Sydra7@reddit
"But the incentive structure that exists is to print more money to get out of every problem, it will never be well managed."
THANK YOU! Why isn’t this everyone’s first thought? Most interventionist ideas can easily be torn apart based on incentives. Keynesians never stick to their own principles in practice for this very reason.
Beginning_Deer_735@reddit
This is either "hypothesis contrary to fact" fallacy, "questionable cause" fallacy, or both.
spocktalk69@reddit
What historical proof do you have to back that up? Rome? Turkish empire, Chinese empire? Persian empire? They use a central bank?
ikonoqlast@reddit
Britain, France... The USA resisted having a central bank for a century after Britain and France. Bank of England- 1694. Even then the USA didn't create a central bank it created a bunch of independent ones. That independence led to the Great Depression. The New York Fed knew what they were doing. Others not so much...
Anen-o-me@reddit (OP)
Bullshit
ikonoqlast@reddit
...and how many years of graduate training do you have?
None?
That's what it seems...
RealNinjafoxtrot@reddit
Saying you have graduate training is no longer the flex it used to be, mate. Now we know that the longer you've spent in most universities in the West, the more detached from reality you are likely to be.
Anen-o-me@reddit (OP)
I rarely see people appeal to their own authority, lol. You are a living, breathing fallacy.
RealNinjafoxtrot@reddit
Well if you're an economist chances are you were trained at an institution that doesn't benefit from questioning this structure...
redditisahive2023@reddit
What books do you recommend to learn more?
ikonoqlast@reddit
Uh... I don't know. I'm mostly regurgitating grad school stuff that didn't have a specific book and articles refined into lectures. (Ie I know the Ramsey model but I've never read his actual paper)
I don't do monetary policy. Sure I had a course in grad school and concepts come up in other courses but in general if it comes up I utter the magic words "rational expectations" and handwave it away
Routine_Medicine5882@reddit
My profession makes fun of economists. They are so bad at their job that not only can they not tell me what the economy is going to do, they can't accurately tell me why it did what it already did.
ikonoqlast@reddit
Physician? So... How does anaesthesia actually work? Be specific...
Why do you so often misdiagnose underlying diseases?
Routine_Medicine5882@reddit
Random reddit name. Never worked in medicine, but at least we can see their value to society. If economists could do what they say they can, their main employers wouldn't be colleges and the government.
ikonoqlast@reddit
Who else is going to guide social policy but government? GM? Microsoft?
And shouldn't government employ people who are experts in knowing what policies will achieve a desired end and what the result will be for desired policies?
Routine_Medicine5882@reddit
Private industry has been and is a source of guidance when policy is being enacted. Oddly enough, those with an incentive to actually understand the economy are better equipped than the amateurs who only exist to perpetuate state control.
ikonoqlast@reddit
Private industry is on its own side, not that of public welfare...
Routine_Medicine5882@reddit
I don't think we disagree there. A Libertarian doesn't see industry as 100% altruistic but are smart enough to recognize that neither is the state and its bureaucracy. Believing anyone is above human nature is folly and creates religion, disguised as government.
Diminished-Fifth@reddit
Is this AI? Is it meant to be so creepy?
spezcanNshouldchoke@reddit
If you wont consume slop of your own accord then we will implement the funnel.
mushroomwzrd@reddit
Yes and yes
DanTheAdequate@reddit
I really, really, really wish Libertarians would focus less on this in an era when the government is literally kidnapping people off the street and shipping them off to wherever the fuck it feels like.
This is just so not the thing.
I_am_Searching@reddit
Shipping illegals out isn't kidnapping it's law enforcement. But ok
DanTheAdequate@reddit
Oh yes, because our super-trustworthy and error proof government surely couldn't be doing this to people who are or are seeing legal immigration.
Police NEVER fuck up. /S
🙄
taubs1@reddit
i dont like their policy of federal reserve, but i have been thinking. if its so prosperous without a central bank why doesn't any top tier country not have one.
Anen-o-me@reddit (OP)
Because they want to inflate. They want free money.
bridgeton_man@reddit
That doesn't actually answer OP's question though. How come there isn't a top-tier world econ that DOESN'T play this game?
Anen-o-me@reddit (OP)
Because they want free money. They can hide the effects of inflation if they all inflate about the same amount at the same time, that won't create relative movement in international currency value.
bridgeton_man@reddit
That STILL doesn't answer the question.
To make an analogy, there was a time when states wanted power and control. So absolute monarchy was a thing. Except that some states, like Switzerland and Venice, didn't play ball, and would rather be republics. Which led them to both be independent and wealthy.
OP's question is basically, "why isn't that happening THIS TIME?". Why is there no major economy which is as uniterested in playing along, as Venice and Switerland were during other times?
Anen-o-me@reddit (OP)
Being a Republic is a lateral move for them. It's not against their interests.
Giving up free money is clearly against the interest of those in power.
bridgeton_man@reddit
Disagree. Most republics throughout history were established by overthrowing a king somewhere. It's true for the Roman republic, as it is for the USA, and France. The Swiss overthrew Austria. That's what William Tell's story is about.
Anen-o-me@reddit (OP)
Republics gain a massive legitimacy advantage which has allowed them to extract far more in taxes than kings were ever able to achieve, which is estimated to be sold 8%, meanwhile we're at nearly 50% now under republics. It's lateral at worst.
bridgeton_man@reddit
These days perhaps. But prior to the Napoleonic period, republics were seen as rouge pariah states. Much like communist countries during the 20th century.
Yeah... the Napoleonic period changed everything. And it wasn't just the rise of France, which created republics everywhere the conquered. It was also the rise of the USA, and the sudden independence of almost all of Latin America (only Brazil became a monarchchy).
That's what caused everything to change.
taubs1@reddit
maybe Argentina will get rid of theirs to see what happens and give us a test example.
Anen-o-me@reddit (OP)
Milei wants to do that and has said as much. Hopefully we'll see it.
The resulting wealth would be insane. Imagine the State not stealing from everyone through inflation every year.
LagerHead@reddit
But everyone will die because food might be cheaper tomorrow. I'd rather die than pay an extra penny for that Pop Tart.
Jepser_Jones@reddit
Because the Federal Reserve, being an instrument of government, is a tool to control people.
The US being the most successful country, is just using its Power to control other people's currency. The Fed being an Institution that can only be sustained by force, is just a tool that other, weaker and therefore controlled governments cannot obtain (at least to the same extent).
bridgeton_man@reddit
That doesn't actually answer OP's question tho. ANYTHING that fits that description, has had some countries that didn't play along. For example, absolute monarchywas a tool of control. But the Switzerland and Venice didn't play along. And both got fabulously wealthy because of not playing along.
So... why isn't that happening now, with this?
ConscientiousPath@reddit
If powerful people see other powerful people doing something they get benefit from, they're eager to copy it.
400 years ago all the most successful countries had Monarchs, and almost no one had ever tried anything different. Doesn't mean that it's the best way to do things.
gvs77@reddit
Because governments can explain why counterfitting is a problem. It steals value from those who hold money. Central banks print money, which is a hidden tax on the holders and governments benefit
natermer@reddit
Because they finance government bullshit through debt when the public won't.
They enable "taxation through inflation" which is a very effective way to tax middle and lower classes without the political ramifications and fallout associated with direct taxation.
Most people don't understand what inflation is or where it comes from. So it is easy to misdirect them.
arushus@reddit
Because if you control the currency you control the people. No govt power structure will let that slip through their hands.
ConscientiousPath@reddit
If powerful people see other powerful people doing something they get benefit from, they're eager to copy it.
400 years ago all the most successful countries had Monarchs, and almost no one had ever tried anything different. Doesn't mean that it's the best way to do things.
redpandaeater@reddit
I like how this AI slop points out money created from nothing like we didn't have a gold standard until 1971.
dr_entropy@reddit
Sure, give the bozos that can't balance the budget control over the money supply. The Fed is the counterweight to a profligate government setting money on fire. Thank God the bankers push back on Leviathan's worst ideas.
kashisolutions@reddit
How do they choose who the President chooses for the Board?
ManyThingsLittleTime@reddit
People work their way up the food chain so the pool of actually qualified people for such a position isn't that small. Then Presidents get recommendations from people that they trust for people that align with their principles and policies.
ConscientiousPath@reddit
It's not like it's against the will of the presidents. Most presidents don't really know or care who any bankers are to start with. And most presidents don't see a reason to care very much anyway, so they ask around and are easily told. And since they've gotten the idea into academia as economic science, there aren't many people in the field who would have other ideas anyway.
0verkast@reddit
My least libertarian opinion might be that I support the existence of the Federal Reserve.
Can you imagine if Biden had control of monetary policy during the inflation crisis when they said higher rates are hurting the poor? Do we want Trump to set rates for himself?
The best way to have the Federal reserve issue less debt is to have congress lower our deficit.
ConscientiousPath@reddit
There are of course possibilities worse than the federal reserve, and giving the executive branch direct control over the printing press instead of indirect control via appointments to the board of the fed would be one of those. But that's why libertarians generally want a solution that is neither of those.
Anen-o-me@reddit (OP)
With strong money, no one would control money. That's even more ideal.
e1i3or@reddit
I don't think the evidence supports that tho, sadly. Monetary volatility is an economy killer.
TheM0nkB0ughtLunch@reddit
I’m also okay with the FR, but only if its operation, and accounting is completely transparent. This is hardly the case.
EmperorOfCanada@reddit
If you want to see how it works when the fed doesn't do it's job , and people are trying to go back, just look at the 30s.
They thought "too much" money was the problem. So. They cut way back. This thinking infected most Western countries. The result was people didn't have money in their pockets. WWII started, and as one old person told me, "overnight, everyone had a job and money in their pockets."
Obviously, too much can cause hyper inflation. And this is the job of the fed. To balance too much against too little. They aren't perfect.
I'm 1971 Nixon needed an economic boost to win the election in 72. So he strongarmed the fed into lowering rates. Great success, very low unemployment, 5% growth. But, it started getting out of control very quickly. He had to institute price controls. By 73, the party was over, inflation was around 12%, jobs were vanishing (stagflation) and the fed had to drastically raise rates.
This is what it looks like when the fed doesn't do it's job.
Without a fed, money will still be printed, but it will be all nixon, all the time; some printing like mad, others, very puritanical, and little printing.
Going back to gold is extra foolish as what does the quantity of gold available to a country have to do with the health of its economy. It becomes distorting as countries chase gold over investing in their future or people.
Anen-o-me@reddit (OP)
This is r/libertarian right? I'm on the right sub?
Obviously we want to end the Fed AND end fiat money too.
So no, money would NOT still be printed. That's the whole point. The Fed prints the money.
End the Fed and go back to hard money, separation of money and State, that is what we need, that is what every country needs.
stoutyteapot@reddit
I mean no. The biggest heist is making you pay for the technology that perpetuates the American Economy. The device that scans your surroundings, listens to your conversations, monitors your texts, and actively recognizes brand names and devices, recognizes key words and phrases…and then turns around and uses ALL THAT INFO as currency for other companies and brands…to further recommend other things for you to buy.
But not just…stuff. But political ideologies and topical outrage as well.
I’d say America’s (if not the world’s) greatest heist is making you pay for the economy that demands that you pay for it.
Let’s be honest here, the economy would collapse if everyone stopped picking up their phones, turned off their TV’s and computers.
We are stupid consumers and ancap’s greatest folly. We are complacent in our chains.
Which I mean I’m fine with being a cog in the wheel of the free market. But at least subsidize our technology for doing so. That’s like having to pay to get into a grocery store…at no other cost than to just be in a grocery store.
BCM072996@reddit
And thats why Trump will be allowed to do whatever he wants until he moves on Jerome Powell. Thats when the tippy top elites will give the order go impeach him.