RSS
Ordered.
In an attempt to quench my thirst for knowledge on the gold standard and opposition to an independent Federal Reserve, I have (on the advice of a certain New Yorker by way of Massachusetts) ordered a copy of Mr. Ron Paul’s “End the Fed.” I know there must be some reason that such a vocal minority clamors for a return to the gold standard and, in the same breath, an end to the Federal Reserve system. Yet, for all my questioning, I have yet to receive even a sophomoric answer other than “gold is independent and stable.” Of course, neither of these statements is true.
I have been inquiring for months about the vitriolic hatred for an independent Federal Reserve and the nostalgic waxing of the same persons for a return to the gold standard. I have no real position on the subject yet other than a gut reaction to endorse an independent Fed over the congressional meddling many (led by Mr. Paul) have called for. Therefore, as soon as I have received and read the book, I will post my reaction to it. In the meantime, if someone has a thought, I am more than interested to read it.
January 6th, 2010 at 9:44 am
Bill,
To even begin to understand, you need to get things right. NOBODY is advocating a return to the “gold standard.” Again, nobody is advocating a return to the gold standard.
A gold standard means that the government pegs its fiat currency to gold, and thereby fixes the price of gold. If you walked into a bank in 1922 and wanted to exchange your bucks for gold, you would get an ounce for $20. You know that if you walked into that back six months earlier or six months later, it would still be $20.
Whereas today, gold fluctuates just like everything else. $1100 one day, $1076 the next, $1124 the next.
Why would libertarians want the government to fix the price of gold, and therefore be in charge of gold (i.e., gold standard)?
January 6th, 2010 at 9:55 am
And now let’s clear up one more thing…
The Federal Reserve is a cartel. It has a monopoly on the banking system and the money supply. It is a de facto central bank. Remember that Karl Marx advocated a central bank.
So to say you want an “independent Fed” is to say that you want banking as a whole to be centralized. Centralization means no competition. Centralization means control by a cartel.
And “independent” is a misnomer. The Federal Reserve chairmen is appointed by POTUS. The Fed finances U.S. Government debt. What do you think the Fed uses to by U.S. Treasury bonds with? Money it creates out of thin air.
You really trust people so intimately tied to Washington D.C. politicians to honestly create money?
January 6th, 2010 at 11:46 am
Josh-
Your question in comment 1 is the same as mine. I don’t understand why any conservative/libertarian would advocate a gold standard as you elucidated. However, you said “NOBODY” and this is just false. Lots of people advocate for it. Maybe they mean something completely different, but a “return to the gold standard” is often vocalized.
Comment 2. What I said was I have a “gut reaction to endorse an independent Fed over… congressional meddling…” I was not necessarily advocating a particular position (i.e. the Fed as it is currently organized) as much as I was recognizing my initial reaction between two options (i.e. government control versus private control). Much like I would rather have my private electricity and gas suppliers than the government owned ones. Again, I don’t have a strong opinion on this one yet. May be I should but at least I am attempting to bone up on the subject before jumping in with both feet.
Have you read this book? Will it offer an alternative to the fiat currency we have now? If so, is it well proposed?
January 6th, 2010 at 2:57 pm
Bill said: “Lots of people advocate for it.”
Well then, I’d like to see who is advocating the gold standard now, so that I might see why they advocate it. I read Steve Forbes recently on this. He wants to keep the Fed, but he praised Paul’s position on gold. So that’s a quasi-gold standard, maybe, but I have yet to find anybody with a modicum of understanding of the issues talk about going back to a 19th century monetary system.
I haven’t read the book. Someone got it for me for Christmas. It’s on my shelf, and I’ll probably never read it, as it will likely rehash in laymen’s terms what I’ve read over and over and over. I’ve heard Paul say time and again that he’s for competing currencies. That would certainly demolish the Fed’s monopoly on what money is and its control of the money supply.
As a lawyer (I assume), you are surely aware of rhetoric and its effects. In your post, those who oppose the Fed have a “vitriolic hatred” for it and “such a vocal minority clamor(s) for a return to the gold standard.” You position yourself as a knowledge-seeker — “for all my questioning,” etc.” — and yet those anti-Fed folks only give you a “sophomoric” answer. So for you, you’d rather see an “independent Fed” than “congressional meddling.”
So to sum up, you stand above the fray as an innocent seeker of knowledge, over those who have a vitrolic hatred, who wax nostalgic for the gold standard, and who endorse congressional meddling. I am challenging you to prove such people even exist. Appears to be a fictional construction to me.
Regardless, sounds like a fairly strong opinion on your part already.
January 6th, 2010 at 3:42 pm
“I am challenging you to prove such people even exist.”
I dare say Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, Glen Beck, Jim Rogers and others have made it clear that they hate the existence of the Fed, want more Congressional and/or federal government control and who generally advocate for the gold standard. I did read Mike’s foray in to the topic but it was only “Part I” and it raised more questions (for me) than it answered. I am still waiting for “Part II.” However, in the comments to Part I, Karl linked to a discussion with Peter Schiff and he seems to advocate for a return to the gold standard. “Vitriolic,” my dear Josh, means harsh. So yes, I would say that there have been some harsh words for the Fed. The persons I noted above have all had harsh words, even words of hatred, for the Fed and everyone of them has mentioned favorably the gold standard. So, yeah, they exist.
I have not read or heard any real argument on how and why the gold standard is better than what we have now. Hopefully there is a good argument, I just have not heard it yet, hence my purchasing a book to read more. As I have said, I am open it the argument, I just need to hear it. May be you know a lot on the subject, I do not. Nevertheless, there is hatred out there for the Fed, there is a call for gold (and as Mike proposed, dual metal) based currencies. Its tough kid, but it this anger and this claim that the glory days can return with a gold standard that piqued my interest in the subject. I should be able to question the premis without encountering such hostility from you. But alas, maybe (and only maybe) you see my interest (and not my uneducated acceptance) in ending the Fed and the support for a gold backed currency as a threat to your side’s point of view. If so, what are you afraid of?
I also have no real position on placing anchovies on pizza but I do know there is rabid, vitriolic hatred by many for it. This does not mean that I hate them too or that I have an opinion way or another. In fact, I have never had them on pizza. Are you sensing a “strong opinion” from me on this as well?
January 18th, 2010 at 6:59 pm
The book arrived today. I am excited to read it. However, as it is tax season, I am ever so slightly busy. Forgive any tardiness in my comments regarding the book.
February 26th, 2010 at 4:32 pm
Finished. I will post my book report here this weekend. In the meantime, suffice it to say that I will be reading some of the suggested material in Dr. Paul’s reading list in the back of the book.