The Mandrake Mechanism & Banking Reform

[CA renter]

I had ordered the book,

The Creature from Jekyll Island : A Second Look at the Federal Reserve

twice from Amazon and they cancelled the order both times (claiming they were out of stock, even though I waited for weeks on back-order). Conspiracy theory? 😉

Will review these links, and greatly appreciate the post/links!

[greekfire]

Amazon took a really long time (3-4 weeks) to send my order as well. You can try this link that I got to from the author’s site (http://freedom-force.org):
http://realityzone.stores.yahoo.net/crfrjeiss.html

I have never ordered through them before, but I bet it won’t be any worse than your experience with Amazon.

[greekfire]

Amazon took a really long time (3-4 weeks) to send my order as well. You can try this link that I got to from the author’s site (http://freedom-force.org):
http://realityzone.stores.yahoo.net/crfrjeiss.html

I have never ordered through them before, but I bet it won’t be any worse than your experience with Amazon.

[greekfire]

Amazon took a really long time (3-4 weeks) to send my order as well. You can try this link that I got to from the author’s site (http://freedom-force.org):
http://realityzone.stores.yahoo.net/crfrjeiss.html

I have never ordered through them before, but I bet it won’t be any worse than your experience with Amazon.

[greekfire]

Amazon took a really long time (3-4 weeks) to send my order as well. You can try this link that I got to from the author’s site (http://freedom-force.org):
http://realityzone.stores.yahoo.net/crfrjeiss.html

I have never ordered through them before, but I bet it won’t be any worse than your experience with Amazon.

[greekfire]

Amazon took a really long time (3-4 weeks) to send my order as well. You can try this link that I got to from the author’s site (http://freedom-force.org):
http://realityzone.stores.yahoo.net/crfrjeiss.html

I have never ordered through them before, but I bet it won’t be any worse than your experience with Amazon.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=greekfire]Here’s a video I came across in which G. Edward Griffin discusses his views on the Fed, the Mandrake Mechanism, and banking reform.

http://www.freedom-force.org/videos/video.cfm?&player=2-1-05mandrake

This is Ed Griffin’s video explanation of topics that he covered extensively in his book, “The Creature from Jekyll Island.”

Naysayers and kool-aid drinkers will say that the author, and others like him, are conspiracy theorists and that this is a bunch of hoopla. Ok. But tell me exactly where they are wrong?

[/quote]

Sorry for the delay in responding to the challenge.
I still don’t find the concepts presented particularly interesting or compelling.

To address the specifics:
The primary problems with the argument made by the interviewer and interviewee in your video are systemic.
See below.

[quote=greekfire]

Do you believe in money that is backed by decree (fiat)…which is ultimately debt and the government’s promise to pay in the future through taxation. Or do you believe in money that is backed by something tangible such as gold or silver?
[/quote]
While there are some distinctions between value based on precious metal and value based on precious paper, the primary difficulty with trying to distinguish the two is that they are both based on social contract. Neither can be eaten or used as a tool(jewelry is an adornment and not a tool). Neither addresses anything at the foundation of the need hierarchy. That is distinct from say, rice in medieval Japan or salt in ancient sub-Saharan or Saharan Africa (or gas in the Road Warrior). Both precious metal and precious paper are based on the assumption of mutual acceptance of an otherwise largely useless item as a medium of exchange. Putting us on a standard that is underpinned by a specific commodity is as much artifice as making it strategic and arbitrary. The discussion on planning is expanded below.
[quote=greekfire]
Do you adhere to the Keynesian School of central economic planning? Or are you more in favor of the Austrian/Mises School of a more individualist, free-market economic system?
What are your thoughts on fractional reserve banking?
[/quote]
Regarding the question of central planning (not specifically Keynesian General Theory) I feel that the correct path lies in the middle. Central economic planning can be done in ways that benefit associated individuals and builds wealth or it can be done poorly and stifle quality of life. I think China in the 2000’s is an example of the former and that China in the 1960’s is an example of the latter.
Regarding Keynes: Essentializing his theses, he believes that the only time that we (or any society) maximize our production-possibilities curve is when we are fully mobilized (as in war) and that un-regulated or un-stimulated economies tend toward less-than-full employment. Ergo, if we want full production and employment it is advisable to attempt to stimulate the economy through outlays (among other means). I think elements of this basic philosophy underpinned the economic expansion of both the post-war era as well as the Reagan years.
I don’t see see early Keynes to be antithetical to most intelligent economics. I see it as essentially an expansion on the classical view (which I see as somewhat limited).
Regarding fractional reserve banking, it has been a staple of banking essentially forever (in some form or another). The attempt at regulation in the early part of the last century was kind of revolutionary in its attempt (and relative success) at mitigating the dangers of FRB (as experienced in the 19th century). Essentially money and economics are just a means by which to meet needs and move wealth. In many ways, FRB made banking more efficient. It existed when money was essentially just pieces of gold (your precious metal above). I think we owe the success of banking as an institution in large part to FRB.
As I said previously regulation and planning can be done well or poorly. I think eliminating this basic function of banking would be an unduly restrictive burden on banks. Could capital and banking still exist without it? Maybe. Its kind of like asking if democracy could exist without capitalism. Again, maybe. In both cases there is not much in the way of positive examples.
[quote=greekfire]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking

To urbanrealtor: this is a hint for your hopeful response to my previous advance from this post: http://piggington.com/piggington_minipoll_if_the_elections_were_held_today_i_would_vot?page=1
…which you STILL haven’t responded to![/quote]
Yeah I figured.
I see the basic problem in asserting that the Fed is a cartel in that a cartel exists between peers. THese can be gov’ts (eg: opec) or companies (eg: SO/Sherman/Rockefeller). I cant see an institution governed by political appointees with the power of monetary policy as anything other than a government entity. Their stock is non-transferable and member banks are beholden to the political appointees. In the sense that any government is a cartel of power then I guess the speaker has a point. However, thats like calling the army a gang. It misses (and muddles) the point. You could potentially call it a public-private partnership but it would still be the most government-centric version of these.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=greekfire]Here’s a video I came across in which G. Edward Griffin discusses his views on the Fed, the Mandrake Mechanism, and banking reform.

http://www.freedom-force.org/videos/video.cfm?&player=2-1-05mandrake

This is Ed Griffin’s video explanation of topics that he covered extensively in his book, “The Creature from Jekyll Island.”

Naysayers and kool-aid drinkers will say that the author, and others like him, are conspiracy theorists and that this is a bunch of hoopla. Ok. But tell me exactly where they are wrong?

[/quote]

Sorry for the delay in responding to the challenge.
I still don’t find the concepts presented particularly interesting or compelling.

To address the specifics:
The primary problems with the argument made by the interviewer and interviewee in your video are systemic.
See below.

[quote=greekfire]

Do you believe in money that is backed by decree (fiat)…which is ultimately debt and the government’s promise to pay in the future through taxation. Or do you believe in money that is backed by something tangible such as gold or silver?
[/quote]
While there are some distinctions between value based on precious metal and value based on precious paper, the primary difficulty with trying to distinguish the two is that they are both based on social contract. Neither can be eaten or used as a tool(jewelry is an adornment and not a tool). Neither addresses anything at the foundation of the need hierarchy. That is distinct from say, rice in medieval Japan or salt in ancient sub-Saharan or Saharan Africa (or gas in the Road Warrior). Both precious metal and precious paper are based on the assumption of mutual acceptance of an otherwise largely useless item as a medium of exchange. Putting us on a standard that is underpinned by a specific commodity is as much artifice as making it strategic and arbitrary. The discussion on planning is expanded below.
[quote=greekfire]
Do you adhere to the Keynesian School of central economic planning? Or are you more in favor of the Austrian/Mises School of a more individualist, free-market economic system?
What are your thoughts on fractional reserve banking?
[/quote]
Regarding the question of central planning (not specifically Keynesian General Theory) I feel that the correct path lies in the middle. Central economic planning can be done in ways that benefit associated individuals and builds wealth or it can be done poorly and stifle quality of life. I think China in the 2000’s is an example of the former and that China in the 1960’s is an example of the latter.
Regarding Keynes: Essentializing his theses, he believes that the only time that we (or any society) maximize our production-possibilities curve is when we are fully mobilized (as in war) and that un-regulated or un-stimulated economies tend toward less-than-full employment. Ergo, if we want full production and employment it is advisable to attempt to stimulate the economy through outlays (among other means). I think elements of this basic philosophy underpinned the economic expansion of both the post-war era as well as the Reagan years.
I don’t see see early Keynes to be antithetical to most intelligent economics. I see it as essentially an expansion on the classical view (which I see as somewhat limited).
Regarding fractional reserve banking, it has been a staple of banking essentially forever (in some form or another). The attempt at regulation in the early part of the last century was kind of revolutionary in its attempt (and relative success) at mitigating the dangers of FRB (as experienced in the 19th century). Essentially money and economics are just a means by which to meet needs and move wealth. In many ways, FRB made banking more efficient. It existed when money was essentially just pieces of gold (your precious metal above). I think we owe the success of banking as an institution in large part to FRB.
As I said previously regulation and planning can be done well or poorly. I think eliminating this basic function of banking would be an unduly restrictive burden on banks. Could capital and banking still exist without it? Maybe. Its kind of like asking if democracy could exist without capitalism. Again, maybe. In both cases there is not much in the way of positive examples.
[quote=greekfire]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking

To urbanrealtor: this is a hint for your hopeful response to my previous advance from this post: http://piggington.com/piggington_minipoll_if_the_elections_were_held_today_i_would_vot?page=1
…which you STILL haven’t responded to![/quote]
Yeah I figured.
I see the basic problem in asserting that the Fed is a cartel in that a cartel exists between peers. THese can be gov’ts (eg: opec) or companies (eg: SO/Sherman/Rockefeller). I cant see an institution governed by political appointees with the power of monetary policy as anything other than a government entity. Their stock is non-transferable and member banks are beholden to the political appointees. In the sense that any government is a cartel of power then I guess the speaker has a point. However, thats like calling the army a gang. It misses (and muddles) the point. You could potentially call it a public-private partnership but it would still be the most government-centric version of these.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=greekfire]Here’s a video I came across in which G. Edward Griffin discusses his views on the Fed, the Mandrake Mechanism, and banking reform.

http://www.freedom-force.org/videos/video.cfm?&player=2-1-05mandrake

This is Ed Griffin’s video explanation of topics that he covered extensively in his book, “The Creature from Jekyll Island.”

Naysayers and kool-aid drinkers will say that the author, and others like him, are conspiracy theorists and that this is a bunch of hoopla. Ok. But tell me exactly where they are wrong?

[/quote]

Sorry for the delay in responding to the challenge.
I still don’t find the concepts presented particularly interesting or compelling.

To address the specifics:
The primary problems with the argument made by the interviewer and interviewee in your video are systemic.
See below.

[quote=greekfire]

Do you believe in money that is backed by decree (fiat)…which is ultimately debt and the government’s promise to pay in the future through taxation. Or do you believe in money that is backed by something tangible such as gold or silver?
[/quote]
While there are some distinctions between value based on precious metal and value based on precious paper, the primary difficulty with trying to distinguish the two is that they are both based on social contract. Neither can be eaten or used as a tool(jewelry is an adornment and not a tool). Neither addresses anything at the foundation of the need hierarchy. That is distinct from say, rice in medieval Japan or salt in ancient sub-Saharan or Saharan Africa (or gas in the Road Warrior). Both precious metal and precious paper are based on the assumption of mutual acceptance of an otherwise largely useless item as a medium of exchange. Putting us on a standard that is underpinned by a specific commodity is as much artifice as making it strategic and arbitrary. The discussion on planning is expanded below.
[quote=greekfire]
Do you adhere to the Keynesian School of central economic planning? Or are you more in favor of the Austrian/Mises School of a more individualist, free-market economic system?
What are your thoughts on fractional reserve banking?
[/quote]
Regarding the question of central planning (not specifically Keynesian General Theory) I feel that the correct path lies in the middle. Central economic planning can be done in ways that benefit associated individuals and builds wealth or it can be done poorly and stifle quality of life. I think China in the 2000’s is an example of the former and that China in the 1960’s is an example of the latter.
Regarding Keynes: Essentializing his theses, he believes that the only time that we (or any society) maximize our production-possibilities curve is when we are fully mobilized (as in war) and that un-regulated or un-stimulated economies tend toward less-than-full employment. Ergo, if we want full production and employment it is advisable to attempt to stimulate the economy through outlays (among other means). I think elements of this basic philosophy underpinned the economic expansion of both the post-war era as well as the Reagan years.
I don’t see see early Keynes to be antithetical to most intelligent economics. I see it as essentially an expansion on the classical view (which I see as somewhat limited).
Regarding fractional reserve banking, it has been a staple of banking essentially forever (in some form or another). The attempt at regulation in the early part of the last century was kind of revolutionary in its attempt (and relative success) at mitigating the dangers of FRB (as experienced in the 19th century). Essentially money and economics are just a means by which to meet needs and move wealth. In many ways, FRB made banking more efficient. It existed when money was essentially just pieces of gold (your precious metal above). I think we owe the success of banking as an institution in large part to FRB.
As I said previously regulation and planning can be done well or poorly. I think eliminating this basic function of banking would be an unduly restrictive burden on banks. Could capital and banking still exist without it? Maybe. Its kind of like asking if democracy could exist without capitalism. Again, maybe. In both cases there is not much in the way of positive examples.
[quote=greekfire]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking

To urbanrealtor: this is a hint for your hopeful response to my previous advance from this post: http://piggington.com/piggington_minipoll_if_the_elections_were_held_today_i_would_vot?page=1
…which you STILL haven’t responded to![/quote]
Yeah I figured.
I see the basic problem in asserting that the Fed is a cartel in that a cartel exists between peers. THese can be gov’ts (eg: opec) or companies (eg: SO/Sherman/Rockefeller). I cant see an institution governed by political appointees with the power of monetary policy as anything other than a government entity. Their stock is non-transferable and member banks are beholden to the political appointees. In the sense that any government is a cartel of power then I guess the speaker has a point. However, thats like calling the army a gang. It misses (and muddles) the point. You could potentially call it a public-private partnership but it would still be the most government-centric version of these.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=greekfire]Here’s a video I came across in which G. Edward Griffin discusses his views on the Fed, the Mandrake Mechanism, and banking reform.

http://www.freedom-force.org/videos/video.cfm?&player=2-1-05mandrake

This is Ed Griffin’s video explanation of topics that he covered extensively in his book, “The Creature from Jekyll Island.”

Naysayers and kool-aid drinkers will say that the author, and others like him, are conspiracy theorists and that this is a bunch of hoopla. Ok. But tell me exactly where they are wrong?

[/quote]

Sorry for the delay in responding to the challenge.
I still don’t find the concepts presented particularly interesting or compelling.

To address the specifics:
The primary problems with the argument made by the interviewer and interviewee in your video are systemic.
See below.

[quote=greekfire]

Do you believe in money that is backed by decree (fiat)…which is ultimately debt and the government’s promise to pay in the future through taxation. Or do you believe in money that is backed by something tangible such as gold or silver?
[/quote]
While there are some distinctions between value based on precious metal and value based on precious paper, the primary difficulty with trying to distinguish the two is that they are both based on social contract. Neither can be eaten or used as a tool(jewelry is an adornment and not a tool). Neither addresses anything at the foundation of the need hierarchy. That is distinct from say, rice in medieval Japan or salt in ancient sub-Saharan or Saharan Africa (or gas in the Road Warrior). Both precious metal and precious paper are based on the assumption of mutual acceptance of an otherwise largely useless item as a medium of exchange. Putting us on a standard that is underpinned by a specific commodity is as much artifice as making it strategic and arbitrary. The discussion on planning is expanded below.
[quote=greekfire]
Do you adhere to the Keynesian School of central economic planning? Or are you more in favor of the Austrian/Mises School of a more individualist, free-market economic system?
What are your thoughts on fractional reserve banking?
[/quote]
Regarding the question of central planning (not specifically Keynesian General Theory) I feel that the correct path lies in the middle. Central economic planning can be done in ways that benefit associated individuals and builds wealth or it can be done poorly and stifle quality of life. I think China in the 2000’s is an example of the former and that China in the 1960’s is an example of the latter.
Regarding Keynes: Essentializing his theses, he believes that the only time that we (or any society) maximize our production-possibilities curve is when we are fully mobilized (as in war) and that un-regulated or un-stimulated economies tend toward less-than-full employment. Ergo, if we want full production and employment it is advisable to attempt to stimulate the economy through outlays (among other means). I think elements of this basic philosophy underpinned the economic expansion of both the post-war era as well as the Reagan years.
I don’t see see early Keynes to be antithetical to most intelligent economics. I see it as essentially an expansion on the classical view (which I see as somewhat limited).
Regarding fractional reserve banking, it has been a staple of banking essentially forever (in some form or another). The attempt at regulation in the early part of the last century was kind of revolutionary in its attempt (and relative success) at mitigating the dangers of FRB (as experienced in the 19th century). Essentially money and economics are just a means by which to meet needs and move wealth. In many ways, FRB made banking more efficient. It existed when money was essentially just pieces of gold (your precious metal above). I think we owe the success of banking as an institution in large part to FRB.
As I said previously regulation and planning can be done well or poorly. I think eliminating this basic function of banking would be an unduly restrictive burden on banks. Could capital and banking still exist without it? Maybe. Its kind of like asking if democracy could exist without capitalism. Again, maybe. In both cases there is not much in the way of positive examples.
[quote=greekfire]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking

To urbanrealtor: this is a hint for your hopeful response to my previous advance from this post: http://piggington.com/piggington_minipoll_if_the_elections_were_held_today_i_would_vot?page=1
…which you STILL haven’t responded to![/quote]
Yeah I figured.
I see the basic problem in asserting that the Fed is a cartel in that a cartel exists between peers. THese can be gov’ts (eg: opec) or companies (eg: SO/Sherman/Rockefeller). I cant see an institution governed by political appointees with the power of monetary policy as anything other than a government entity. Their stock is non-transferable and member banks are beholden to the political appointees. In the sense that any government is a cartel of power then I guess the speaker has a point. However, thats like calling the army a gang. It misses (and muddles) the point. You could potentially call it a public-private partnership but it would still be the most government-centric version of these.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=greekfire]Here’s a video I came across in which G. Edward Griffin discusses his views on the Fed, the Mandrake Mechanism, and banking reform.

http://www.freedom-force.org/videos/video.cfm?&player=2-1-05mandrake

This is Ed Griffin’s video explanation of topics that he covered extensively in his book, “The Creature from Jekyll Island.”

Naysayers and kool-aid drinkers will say that the author, and others like him, are conspiracy theorists and that this is a bunch of hoopla. Ok. But tell me exactly where they are wrong?

[/quote]

Sorry for the delay in responding to the challenge.
I still don’t find the concepts presented particularly interesting or compelling.

To address the specifics:
The primary problems with the argument made by the interviewer and interviewee in your video are systemic.
See below.

[quote=greekfire]

Do you believe in money that is backed by decree (fiat)…which is ultimately debt and the government’s promise to pay in the future through taxation. Or do you believe in money that is backed by something tangible such as gold or silver?
[/quote]
While there are some distinctions between value based on precious metal and value based on precious paper, the primary difficulty with trying to distinguish the two is that they are both based on social contract. Neither can be eaten or used as a tool(jewelry is an adornment and not a tool). Neither addresses anything at the foundation of the need hierarchy. That is distinct from say, rice in medieval Japan or salt in ancient sub-Saharan or Saharan Africa (or gas in the Road Warrior). Both precious metal and precious paper are based on the assumption of mutual acceptance of an otherwise largely useless item as a medium of exchange. Putting us on a standard that is underpinned by a specific commodity is as much artifice as making it strategic and arbitrary. The discussion on planning is expanded below.
[quote=greekfire]
Do you adhere to the Keynesian School of central economic planning? Or are you more in favor of the Austrian/Mises School of a more individualist, free-market economic system?
What are your thoughts on fractional reserve banking?
[/quote]
Regarding the question of central planning (not specifically Keynesian General Theory) I feel that the correct path lies in the middle. Central economic planning can be done in ways that benefit associated individuals and builds wealth or it can be done poorly and stifle quality of life. I think China in the 2000’s is an example of the former and that China in the 1960’s is an example of the latter.
Regarding Keynes: Essentializing his theses, he believes that the only time that we (or any society) maximize our production-possibilities curve is when we are fully mobilized (as in war) and that un-regulated or un-stimulated economies tend toward less-than-full employment. Ergo, if we want full production and employment it is advisable to attempt to stimulate the economy through outlays (among other means). I think elements of this basic philosophy underpinned the economic expansion of both the post-war era as well as the Reagan years.
I don’t see see early Keynes to be antithetical to most intelligent economics. I see it as essentially an expansion on the classical view (which I see as somewhat limited).
Regarding fractional reserve banking, it has been a staple of banking essentially forever (in some form or another). The attempt at regulation in the early part of the last century was kind of revolutionary in its attempt (and relative success) at mitigating the dangers of FRB (as experienced in the 19th century). Essentially money and economics are just a means by which to meet needs and move wealth. In many ways, FRB made banking more efficient. It existed when money was essentially just pieces of gold (your precious metal above). I think we owe the success of banking as an institution in large part to FRB.
As I said previously regulation and planning can be done well or poorly. I think eliminating this basic function of banking would be an unduly restrictive burden on banks. Could capital and banking still exist without it? Maybe. Its kind of like asking if democracy could exist without capitalism. Again, maybe. In both cases there is not much in the way of positive examples.
[quote=greekfire]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking

To urbanrealtor: this is a hint for your hopeful response to my previous advance from this post: http://piggington.com/piggington_minipoll_if_the_elections_were_held_today_i_would_vot?page=1
…which you STILL haven’t responded to![/quote]
Yeah I figured.
I see the basic problem in asserting that the Fed is a cartel in that a cartel exists between peers. THese can be gov’ts (eg: opec) or companies (eg: SO/Sherman/Rockefeller). I cant see an institution governed by political appointees with the power of monetary policy as anything other than a government entity. Their stock is non-transferable and member banks are beholden to the political appointees. In the sense that any government is a cartel of power then I guess the speaker has a point. However, thats like calling the army a gang. It misses (and muddles) the point. You could potentially call it a public-private partnership but it would still be the most government-centric version of these.

[Carl Veritas]

Greekfire, let me know when you get to the chapter-

The Origins Of The Federal Reserve from Rothbards book “A History of Money and Banking in the United States”.

Our nations history shows that the federal government cannot behave responsibly with money.

Bretton Woods was actually an in-the-middle approach agreed upon by the victorious allies after World War 2. In this, the US dollar was used as a “reserve” currency by the foreign central banks in which they could pyramid their own currencies. And unlike the previous gold standard, only central banks can exchange paper dollars for gold. To make way for this new “gold exchange” system, FDR had Fort Knox built to store the peoples confiscated gold. For their own good no doubt. Influenced by Keynesian economics, the US proceeded to print away while countries such as West Germany, France, Italy and Switzerland began to achieve prosperity without as much printing. The dollar became overvalued in relation to gold and increasingly overvalued against other currencies. The result was chronic and continuing deficit in the American balance of payments from the early 1950s on. This drained the gold out of the country as foreign central banks continued to exchange their paper dollars for gold,
until Nixon finally “freed” the dollar from gold and broke our agreement. Gold was not the cause of the breakdown, it was the the federal governments deep desire to have the ability to spend as it wish without the irritating process of collecting taxes.

Economists say prices are determined by supply and demand in the freemarket. So then the price of borrowing money (interest rates) should be determined by the supply of loanable money, correct?

In other words, if the supply of savings are scarce,
then rates should be high to reflect the scarcity.
This is no arbitrary price(the rate) because this is
the consumers preference with regards to their money. If they want to save more and spend less this month, supply of savings would be up and rates down. The entrepreneurs follow the consumers preference and makes production plans accordingly.
The planners ignore this important price signal and routinely pump bank reserves to force the rates down.
The system gets flooded with new money and sometimes
creates unsustainable production and employment. Unsustainable because since there were no real savings in the first place, so the consumption only continue as long as the money spigot is open.
The bust arrives once the planners decide it is now time to drain bank reserves and force rates upwards.
Now that’s some economic belief system.
Everyone including
the planners blame the malaise on everything else but their own actions. Just turn the TV on and listen.

[Carl Veritas]

Greekfire, let me know when you get to the chapter-

The Origins Of The Federal Reserve from Rothbards book “A History of Money and Banking in the United States”.

Our nations history shows that the federal government cannot behave responsibly with money.

Bretton Woods was actually an in-the-middle approach agreed upon by the victorious allies after World War 2. In this, the US dollar was used as a “reserve” currency by the foreign central banks in which they could pyramid their own currencies. And unlike the previous gold standard, only central banks can exchange paper dollars for gold. To make way for this new “gold exchange” system, FDR had Fort Knox built to store the peoples confiscated gold. For their own good no doubt. Influenced by Keynesian economics, the US proceeded to print away while countries such as West Germany, France, Italy and Switzerland began to achieve prosperity without as much printing. The dollar became overvalued in relation to gold and increasingly overvalued against other currencies. The result was chronic and continuing deficit in the American balance of payments from the early 1950s on. This drained the gold out of the country as foreign central banks continued to exchange their paper dollars for gold,
until Nixon finally “freed” the dollar from gold and broke our agreement. Gold was not the cause of the breakdown, it was the the federal governments deep desire to have the ability to spend as it wish without the irritating process of collecting taxes.

Economists say prices are determined by supply and demand in the freemarket. So then the price of borrowing money (interest rates) should be determined by the supply of loanable money, correct?

In other words, if the supply of savings are scarce,
then rates should be high to reflect the scarcity.
This is no arbitrary price(the rate) because this is
the consumers preference with regards to their money. If they want to save more and spend less this month, supply of savings would be up and rates down. The entrepreneurs follow the consumers preference and makes production plans accordingly.
The planners ignore this important price signal and routinely pump bank reserves to force the rates down.
The system gets flooded with new money and sometimes
creates unsustainable production and employment. Unsustainable because since there were no real savings in the first place, so the consumption only continue as long as the money spigot is open.
The bust arrives once the planners decide it is now time to drain bank reserves and force rates upwards.
Now that’s some economic belief system.
Everyone including
the planners blame the malaise on everything else but their own actions. Just turn the TV on and listen.

[Carl Veritas]

Greekfire, let me know when you get to the chapter-

The Origins Of The Federal Reserve from Rothbards book “A History of Money and Banking in the United States”.

Our nations history shows that the federal government cannot behave responsibly with money.

Bretton Woods was actually an in-the-middle approach agreed upon by the victorious allies after World War 2. In this, the US dollar was used as a “reserve” currency by the foreign central banks in which they could pyramid their own currencies. And unlike the previous gold standard, only central banks can exchange paper dollars for gold. To make way for this new “gold exchange” system, FDR had Fort Knox built to store the peoples confiscated gold. For their own good no doubt. Influenced by Keynesian economics, the US proceeded to print away while countries such as West Germany, France, Italy and Switzerland began to achieve prosperity without as much printing. The dollar became overvalued in relation to gold and increasingly overvalued against other currencies. The result was chronic and continuing deficit in the American balance of payments from the early 1950s on. This drained the gold out of the country as foreign central banks continued to exchange their paper dollars for gold,
until Nixon finally “freed” the dollar from gold and broke our agreement. Gold was not the cause of the breakdown, it was the the federal governments deep desire to have the ability to spend as it wish without the irritating process of collecting taxes.

Economists say prices are determined by supply and demand in the freemarket. So then the price of borrowing money (interest rates) should be determined by the supply of loanable money, correct?

In other words, if the supply of savings are scarce,
then rates should be high to reflect the scarcity.
This is no arbitrary price(the rate) because this is
the consumers preference with regards to their money. If they want to save more and spend less this month, supply of savings would be up and rates down. The entrepreneurs follow the consumers preference and makes production plans accordingly.
The planners ignore this important price signal and routinely pump bank reserves to force the rates down.
The system gets flooded with new money and sometimes
creates unsustainable production and employment. Unsustainable because since there were no real savings in the first place, so the consumption only continue as long as the money spigot is open.
The bust arrives once the planners decide it is now time to drain bank reserves and force rates upwards.
Now that’s some economic belief system.
Everyone including
the planners blame the malaise on everything else but their own actions. Just turn the TV on and listen.

[Carl Veritas]

Greekfire, let me know when you get to the chapter-

The Origins Of The Federal Reserve from Rothbards book “A History of Money and Banking in the United States”.

Our nations history shows that the federal government cannot behave responsibly with money.

Bretton Woods was actually an in-the-middle approach agreed upon by the victorious allies after World War 2. In this, the US dollar was used as a “reserve” currency by the foreign central banks in which they could pyramid their own currencies. And unlike the previous gold standard, only central banks can exchange paper dollars for gold. To make way for this new “gold exchange” system, FDR had Fort Knox built to store the peoples confiscated gold. For their own good no doubt. Influenced by Keynesian economics, the US proceeded to print away while countries such as West Germany, France, Italy and Switzerland began to achieve prosperity without as much printing. The dollar became overvalued in relation to gold and increasingly overvalued against other currencies. The result was chronic and continuing deficit in the American balance of payments from the early 1950s on. This drained the gold out of the country as foreign central banks continued to exchange their paper dollars for gold,
until Nixon finally “freed” the dollar from gold and broke our agreement. Gold was not the cause of the breakdown, it was the the federal governments deep desire to have the ability to spend as it wish without the irritating process of collecting taxes.

Economists say prices are determined by supply and demand in the freemarket. So then the price of borrowing money (interest rates) should be determined by the supply of loanable money, correct?

In other words, if the supply of savings are scarce,
then rates should be high to reflect the scarcity.
This is no arbitrary price(the rate) because this is
the consumers preference with regards to their money. If they want to save more and spend less this month, supply of savings would be up and rates down. The entrepreneurs follow the consumers preference and makes production plans accordingly.
The planners ignore this important price signal and routinely pump bank reserves to force the rates down.
The system gets flooded with new money and sometimes
creates unsustainable production and employment. Unsustainable because since there were no real savings in the first place, so the consumption only continue as long as the money spigot is open.
The bust arrives once the planners decide it is now time to drain bank reserves and force rates upwards.
Now that’s some economic belief system.
Everyone including
the planners blame the malaise on everything else but their own actions. Just turn the TV on and listen.

[Author]

Posts