Do We Really Need The Federal Reserve?

[SnyderShrugged]

Right off the back. No congressional comittee can supervise its actions because they chose not to. If Congress passed a law that said, 'The Fed must do X, Y, and Z or be disbanded.' that law would be valid and enforcable. So in fact they CAN supervise the just DON'T.

Inflation happened before the federal reserve.

Money was very unstable before the federal reserve.

The federal reserve and the gold standard are not incompatible.

Money did not reliably increase in value while on the gold standard.

I think I got about 5 minutes in the first one.

Goodness! I had no idea that you were so much more intelligent than the likes of Rothbard and the folks at Mises! I bow to your grandure!

Like it, hate it, whatever, no skin off my behind. I posted it for those that desired to see a view that is often overlooked, yet often validated by real events.

I choose to listen to them, if you dont, fine and dandy my brotha!

[JohnLockesGhost]

You'd still be bringing competition. You'd still have people shift to your coins from goverment currency.

The goverment currency will always be there, but there is no requirement that it be used. Everybody I know still get US postal mail. Sometimes they use other things though.

Sure there is. The law says the dollar is legal tender for all debts public and private. If legal tender is offered for the reconciliation of a debt, but refused, the debt will be dismissed by a judge because legal tender was offered.

I cannot refuse the dollars of my tenant if their offered to me to pay the rent, even if I'd rather have him pay with something else.

[PeterMP]

Sure there is. The law says the dollar is legal tender for all debts public and private. If legal tender is offered for the reconciliation of a debt, but refused, the debt will be dismissed by a judge because legal tender was offered.

I cannot refuse the dollars of my tenant if their offered to me to pay the rent, even if I'd rather have him pay with something else.

And if the goverment sends you something by certified US postal mail, you're suppossed to still take it and then are responsible for the contents.

[SnyderShrugged]

And if the goverment sends you something by certified US postal mail, you're suppossed to still take it and then are responsible for the contents.

You dont have to accept it and can refuse signature

[PeterMP]

You dont have to accept it and can refuse signature

Refusal to accept certified mail is frequently considered enough for legal notification. Essentially, refusing to sign it would put in you the same situation as refusing the goverments money.

[SnyderShrugged]

Refusal to accept certified mail is frequently considered enough for legal notification. Essentially, refusing to sign it would put in you the same situation as refusing the goverments money.

I dont belive that is correct. I worked in the repo field once upon a time ago, and we were not legally able to repossess if a certified letter wasnt signed for by the buyer.

I may be wrong, but there is no legal obligation to accept certified mail nor is there an inference that a refusal is an acceptance. I believe a refusal is equal to a potential bad address from a legal standpoint.

I'll try to find detail and will post what i find whether I'm correct or not.

[MurrayH81]

"Control the coinage and the courts -- let the rabble have the rest." Thus the Padishah Emperor advises you. And he tells you: "If you want profits, you must rule." There is truth in these words, but I ask myself: "Who are the rabble and who are the ruled?"

-Muad'Dib's Secret Message to the Landsraad from "Arrakis Awakening" by the Princess Irulan

Perhaps we should Nationalize the Federal Reserve Bank instead of these others.

[SnyderShrugged]

I think we both may be semi correct. An official "refusal" may be seen as a rebuttal or confirmation of the legal documents inside, but a simple "no signature" without an official signature cannot be seen as such and is considered undeliverable and sent back to the sender after 3 attempts.

[PeterMP]

I dont belive that is correct. I worked in the repo field once upon a time ago, and we were not legally able to repossess if a certified letter wasnt signed for by the buyer.

I may be wrong, but there is no legal obligation to accept certified mail nor is there an inference that a refusal is an acceptance. I believe a refusal is equal to a potential bad address from a legal standpoint.

I'll try to find detail and will post what i find whether I'm correct or not.

1. It depends on who you are. For things like the IRS, sending to the last known address in most cases will be enough.

2. Failure to have the mail delivered is not the same as the refusal to accept it.

If I send you certified mail, you are home when it gets there, and you refuse to sign it, then its refused. If you're never home and you never pick it up, then that's failure to deliver.

In MANY cases, refusal to accept is suffecient. Failure to deliver isn't.

**EDIT** I don't know about repossesing a car. There are cases where it isn't. For the goverment, it almost always is even if its failed to deliver and not refusal.

[SnyderShrugged]

1. It depends on who you are. For things like the IRS, sending to the last known address in most cases will be enough.

2. Failure to have the mail delivered is not the same as the refusal to accept it.

If I send you certified mail, you are home when it gets there, and you refuse to sign it, then its refused. If you're never home and you never pick it up, then that's failure to deliver.

In MANY cases, refusal to accept is suffecient. Failure to deliver isn't.

LOL, I think we came to the same conclusion at the same time.

[I_Slapped_Jerry_Jones]

This topic has been beat to death.

[JMS]

Sure there is. The law says the dollar is legal tender for all debts public and private. If legal tender is offered for the reconciliation of a debt, but refused, the debt will be dismissed by a judge because legal tender was offered.

I cannot refuse the dollars of my tenant if their offered to me to pay the rent, even if I'd rather have him pay with something else.

But you can link payments to gold standards or foreign currency. You could legally say in your lease that you are renting your appartment for the monthly market value of an once of gold..... Then take the spot market in dollars..

The entire idea that the federal government is somehow deflaiting or deminishing the dollar is your problem. The reason why the gold standard sucks is because it artificially limits your money supply. In a country who's population is growing by leaps and bounds ( we are now the 3rd most populous country in the world behind only China and India ) that's unsustainable....

The amount of money in the economy ( money supply ) can itself by a limiting factor on growth. Hoover found that out pretty convincingly, and that's what we are trying to fight today.

[JMS]

I dont belive that is correct. I worked in the repo field once upon a time ago, and we were not legally able to repossess if a certified letter wasnt signed for by the buyer.

I may be wrong, but there is no legal obligation to accept certified mail nor is there an inference that a refusal is an acceptance. I believe a refusal is equal to a potential bad address from a legal standpoint.

I'll try to find detail and will post what i find whether I'm correct or not.

If the state of federal government send you a certified letter, and you choose not to pick it up; it's not a legal defense in coart that you weren't notified......

I think your repo company was just erroring on the side of caution.

[brandymac27]

I highly recommend this website: www.mises.org

Also, personally I find the documentary Zeitgeist: Addendum very insightful and informative, found here: www.zeitgeistmovie.com or you can search for it via google.

This movie was pretty good. For some reason, I believe the economic hitman. I think he's telling the truth. I also like the older man with the big ears. He hits the nail on the head. Also that magnetic train, 4000mph, dayum! That's pretty cool.

Overall, I think the movie was really good, and seems a lot more legit than the original Zeitgeist (especially considering this one speaks mainly on economic issues).

[PeterMP]

This movie was pretty good. For some reason, I believe the economic hitman. I think he's telling the truth. I also like the older man with the big ears. He hits the nail on the head. Also that magnetic train, 4000mph, dayum! That's pretty cool.

Overall, I think the movie was really good, and seems a lot more legit than the original Zeitgeist (especially considering this one speaks mainly on economic issues).

I said before that I don't think the federal goverment pays interest. I don't think the Fed ever has collected it.

Also, I think they have it backwards. The spending is driving the increased money supply.

Has there ever been a system where there weren't poor people? (I actually think that's communism, but I can't believe they are arguing that we should go to a communist goverment based on the first movie).

A lot of their movie seems to be based on one thing. That is that the pool of resources never increases, but that's not true. More people make more things and consume more things so you can cover the greater transactions w/o any real dillution of the value.

This ties into JMS's point about the expanding population.

If their point is that there will always be poor people, I agree.

[Hubbs]

Has there ever been a system where there weren't poor people? (I actually think that's communism, but I can't believe they are arguing that we should go to a communist goverment based on the first movie).

Wait... you're not saying that Communism didn't result in poor people, are you?

[brandymac27]

I said before that I don't think the federal goverment pays interest. I don't think the Fed ever has collected it.

Also, I think they have it backwards. The spending is driving the increased money supply.

Has there ever been a system where there weren't poor people? (I actually think that's communism, but I can't believe they are arguing that we should go to a communist goverment based on the first movie).

A lot of their movie seems to be based on one thing. That is that the pool of resources never increases, but that's not true. More people make more things and consume more things so you can cover the greater transactions w/o any real dillution of the value.

This ties into JMS's point about the expanding population.

If their point is that there will always be poor people, I agree.

Well, what got me was the whole credit system and how the banks just make money out of thin air. I know that this isn't a new development, something about it just really sunk in while I was watching the movie. I mean,like the example they provided in the movie about the foreclosure lawsuit in which the person won based on the fact that both parties (the bank and the buyer) must put up property to set up the initial transaction, yet the bank didn't put up their portion. Because technically, the banks don't actually put up real money, they use "make believe money" LOL! Anyway, the buyer actually won his case in court when the banker actually said in court documents that the bank never put up any real property or money. Long story short, the person's house wasn't forclosed on b/c the bank couldn't provide proof that it actually had the cash to be loaning in the first place.

Now that^^^^^^is what I call justice lol!

[footballhenry]

I said before that I don't think the federal goverment pays interest. I don't think the Fed ever has collected it.

Also, I think they have it backwards. The spending is driving the increased money supply.

Has there ever been a system where there weren't poor people? (I actually think that's communism, but I can't believe they are arguing that we should go to a communist goverment based on the first movie).

A lot of their movie seems to be based on one thing. That is that the pool of resources never increases, but that's not true. More people make more things and consume more things so you can cover the greater transactions w/o any real dillution of the value.

This ties into JMS's point about the expanding population.

If their point is that there will always be poor people, I agree.

I'm not so sure if thats the focus of this doc. But rather than go back and forth, what is the primary cause of the record amount of debts that we as a society have incurred then? Since the Federal Reserve is the monetary policy vehicle, then what role do they have with the incurred debt? If they charge interest on the money put out, and they are the ones that control the supply, then how can the debt be paid down (principle < principle + interest)?

[footballhenry]

Well, what got me was the whole credit system and how the banks just make money out of thin air. I know that this isn't a new development, something about it just really sunk in while I was watching the movie. I mean,like the example they provided in the movie about the foreclosure lawsuit in which the person won based on the fact that both parties (the bank and the buyer) must put up property to set up the initial transaction, yet the bank didn't put up their portion. Because technically, the banks don't actually put up real money, they use "make believe money" LOL! Anyway, the buyer actually won his case in court when the banker actually said in court documents that the bank never put up any real property or money. Long story short, the person's house wasn't forclosed on b/c the bank couldn't provide proof that it actually had the cash to be loaning in the first place.

Now that^^^^^^is what I call justice lol!

haha, yeah I thought the same thing about that section. Justice indeed. :applause:

[PeterMP]

Wait... you're not saying that Communism didn't result in poor people, are you?

Okay, let's start w/ what was done in Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union, China, and other countries was not communism. They were/are tolitarian goverments in which the goverment controlls the property and means of production.

That's not communism.

A truely successful communist society should not have anybody that is living beneth their needs so it depends on what you consider poor.

[PeterMP]

I'm not so sure if thats the focus of this doc. But rather than go back and forth, what is the primary cause of the record amount of debts that we as a society have incurred then? Since the Federal Reserve is the monetary policy vehicle, then what role do they have with the incurred debt? If they charge interest on the money put out, and they are the ones that control the supply, then how can the debt be paid down (principle < principle + interest)?

The federal debt?

We keep electing officials that spend more than the goverment collects.

The goverment never pays the interest though to the Fed.

What happens when new resources are discovered? I find a new gold field. Gold is worth money. I can access money then w/o borrowing it. That's an extreme example, but essentially the same is true for any resource. Even time.

[PeterMP]

Anyway, the buyer actually won his case in court when the banker actually said in court documents that the bank never put up any real property or money. Long story short, the person's house wasn't forclosed on b/c the bank couldn't provide proof that it actually had the cash to be loaning in the first place.

Now that^^^^^^is what I call justice lol!

Their first film contained people that won cases against the IRS (in the initial round) based on their logic w/ respect to the income tax.

[JohnLockesGhost]

I thought this excerpt from Murray Rothbard would bring a little to our discussion.

Rothbard: "The idea of private coinage seems so strange today that it is worth examining carefully. We are used to thinking of coinage as a "necessity of sovereignty." Yet, after all, we are not wedded to a "royal prerogative," and it is the American concept that sovereignty rests, not in government, but in the people.

"How would private coinage work? In the same way, we have said, as any other business. Each minter would produce whatever size or shape of coin is most pleasing to his customers. The price would be set by the free competition of the market.

"The standard objection is that it would be too much trouble to weigh or assay bits of gold at every transaction. But what is there to prevent private minters from stamping the coin and guaranteeing its weight and fineness? Private minters can guarantee a coin at least as well as a government mint. Abraded bits of metal would not be accepted as coin. People would use the coins of those minters with the best reputation for good quality of product. We have seen that this is precisely how the "dollar" became prominent – as a competitive silver coin.

"Opponents of private coinage charge that fraud would run rampant. Yet, these same opponents would trust government to provide the coinage. But if government is to be trusted at all, then surely, with private coinage, government could at least be trusted to prevent or punish fraud. It is usually assumed that the prevention or punishment of fraud, theft, or other crimes is the real justification for government. But if government cannot apprehend the criminal when private coinage is relied upon, what hope is there for a reliable coinage when the integrity of the private marketplace operators is discarded in favor of a government monopoly of coinage? If government cannot be trusted to ferret out the occasional villain in the free market in coin, why can government be trusted when it finds itself in a position of total control over money and may debase coin, counterfeit coin, or otherwise with full legal sanction perform as the sole villain in the marketplace? It is surely folly to say that government must socialize all property in order to prevent anyone from stealing property. Yet the reasoning behind abolition of private coinage is the same.

"Moreover, all modern business is built on guarantees of standards. The drug store sells an eight-ounce bottle of medicine; the meat packer sells a pound of beef. The buyer expects these guarantees to be accurate, and they are. And think of the thousands upon thousands of specialized, vital industrial products that must meet very narrow standards and specifications. The buyer of a 1/2 inch bolt must get a 1/2 inch bolt and not a mere 3/8 inch.

"Yet, business has not broken down. Few people suggest that the government must nationalize the machine-tool industry as part of its job of defending standards against fraud. The modern market economy contains an infinite number of intricate exchanges, most depending on definite standards of quantity and quality. But fraud is at a minimum, and that minimum, at least in theory, may be prosecuted. So it would be if there were private coinage. We can be sure that a minter's customers, and his competitors, would be keenly alert to any possible fraud in the weight or fineness of his coins.

"Champions of the government's coinage monopoly have claimed that money is different from all other commodities, because "Gresham's Law" proves that "bad money drives out good" from circulation. Hence, the free market cannot be trusted to serve the public in supplying good money.

But this formulation rests on a misinterpretation of Gresham's famous law. The law really says that

money overvalued artificially by government will drive out of circulation artificially undervalued money.

"Suppose, for example, there are one-ounce gold coins in circulation. After a few years of wear and tear, let us say that some coins weigh only .9 ounces. Obviously, on the free market, the worn coins would circulate at only 90 percent of the value of the full-bodied coins, and the nominal face value of the former would have to be repudiated.If anything, it will be the "bad" coins that will be driven from the market.

"But suppose the government decrees that everyone must treat the worn coins as equal to new, fresh coins, and must accept them equally in payment of debts. What has the government really done? It has imposed price control by coercion on the "exchange rate" between the two types of coin. By insisting on the par ratio when the worn coins should exchange at 10 percent discount, it artificially overvalues the worn coins and undervalues new coins. Consequently, everyone will circulate the worn coins, and hoard or export the new. "Bad money drives out good money," then, not on the free market, but as the direct result of governmental intervention in the market."

[PeterMP]

It is surely folly to say that government must socialize all property in order to prevent anyone from stealing property. Yet the reasoning behind abolition of private coinage is the same.

"Moreover, all modern business is built on guarantees of standards. The drug store sells an eight-ounce bottle of medicine; the meat packer sells a pound of beef. The buyer expects these guarantees to be accurate, and they are. And think of the thousands upon thousands of specialized, vital industrial products that must meet very narrow standards and specifications. The buyer of a 1/2 inch bolt must get a 1/2 inch bolt and not a mere 3/8 inch.

"Yet, business has not broken down. Few people suggest that the government must nationalize the machine-tool industry as part of its job of defending standards against fraud."

I will comment on this one part. His analogy is flawed for several reasons:

1. With respect to a bolt, I doubt there is much (if any) incentive w/ respect to making money between a 1/2 and 3/8 bolt. Clearly, if we are talking about coins as precious metals, there is an incentive to commit as much fraud as you can get away with.

A better compairsion would be gasonline fraud, which isn't unheard of:

http://www.nassaucountyny.gov/agencies/OCA/NewsRelease/2006/GasolineFraud.html

http://museum.nist.gov/exhibits/ex1/rm8/rm8-01content.htm

http://cbs11tv.com/consumer/House.gas.prices.2.502713.html

2. Even in the case of gas fraud, the impact down the economy won't be felt in the same manner. Presumably in the case of gas, the company that's being defrauded is passing the cost (unintentionally) on their consumers (or their on profits), but their consumers understands that w/ respect to the prices they are paying (assuming the company that has the fraud committed against them isn't committing fraud). That won't be the case w/ respect to currency. I buy 10 JLG bucks from you. I use them at a small business to buy something else. The owner there just takes them to buy something somewhere else.

We all then find out that those 10 JLG bucks are fraudualent and only worth 9. I might have actual documentation (a reciept) that shows I bought 10 JLG bucks from you. The store that ends up with them can prove that they have them because they are in physical possession of them. The guy in the middle doesn't have them and unless he institutes a policy of tracking who paid with what has no record they passed through his hands.

Who has fraud been comitted against?

Who gets the value from any settlement against you?

Lastly, with all this said, there's nothing stopping you from setting up a currency to compete with the dollar. Just make sure you don't suggest that it is equivalent to the dollar or legal tender.

[footballhenry]

Just found this very powerful presentation on the Fed by Rod Parsley found on youtube. He is beaming with charisma and really captivates with you his voice. I definitely recommend it:

Part 1 of 5 (the rest are linked through):