Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Almighty Buck

zogger's Journal: The best hope for economic reform, happy birthday 7

Journal by zogger

Ron Paul's birthday today. Thanks, man! Best wishes!

    Latest Audit the Fed numbers are 282 cosponsors in the House (easily enough for a pass), 23 in the Senate (getting dang close). And if we didn't have that ridiculous poseur and most likely severely compromised buffoon in charge of the financial services committee (the man is an economic moron, let's be "Frank" about that), along with the bulk of one side of the aisle being "hesitant" (what are they afraid of? That the US public will get the full skinny on all the who, what, when, where and whys that lead to the financial crisis? Oh the horrors! What happened to the "transparency" promise?) maybe we could get a vote on it and get on the way to some reality based constructive change. We still have a chance to blow all this economic crap, all these high level crimes and misdemeanors, out of the water and have a true peaceful but effective revolution and a return to a true wealth producing economy with a much sounder buck.

  There are no downsides to eliminating the fraud and abuse in the system, and it starts with the mother of all economic frauds and abuses, the Fed.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The best hope for economic reform, happy birthday

Comments Filter:
  • Disclaimer: I wrote in Paul in the Republican primaries last time, would vote for him again. But I'm not a registered Rep/Dem. Kucinich, Baldwin, Barr, Nader, or McKinney also would have been better than McCain or Obama. Technically, a brick would have been better than them. A brick can't sign any legislation.

    That said, abolishing the Fed is spot on, we don't need to be paying interest on an inflated money supply. Obviously, it's impossible to ever pay this off. And we don't need that type of authority vest

    • I agree that basing our money on any single thing - be it gold, platinum, kilowatt-hours, bagels, whatever - is a bad idea. The money supply can only grow at that item grows: if the rate at which gold is mined and sold is less than the over-all growth rate of the economy, then the money supply contracts and the system shuts down. If something happens to increase the gold supply at a rate higher than the over-all growth of the economy, then the money supply inflates. At one time the Founding Fathers consider

      • The only guaranteed relationship is to entire baskets of goods. I can exchange $1000 for a booklet of vouchers for ALL of the goods in the basket, but I cannot get any single item in that basket for any guaranteed price. If I happen to be a vegetarian, tough: the booklet has a voucher for meat - get over it. Trade it to a carnivore for some vegetables, burn it, frame it, whatever - but it is part and parcel for the $1000 you traded in.

        ....

        Now consider the effect of this. Assuming the basket

        • by wowbagger (69688)

          No, it means the total "value" of the basket has gone up, so other things in the economy will become less expensive: I can trade in my $1000 for the vouchers for food, wood, and stone, then trade those things for other items, and get more of those other items in exchange for what I have.

          The supplies of the things that define money have contracted, therefore the money supply itself should contract. It may not be "fun", but it is what is necessary for money to truly be money.

          Now, in such a situation, if I sel

          • this is why (Score:2, Interesting)

            by zogger (617870)

            your example "that is why I keep saying that the basket needs to be a representative set of things the average person will need to live, not just "food, wood, stone"."..this is why I wanted the top 100 traded commodities to be the basis for fixing the value of the new dollar currency. 100 top items should fairly represent a very broad consumer interest, and because it is the "top" traded, those various items can change as society changes, but the formula can remain the same.

            I agree, "just" gold don't cut it

    • ..all it says is congress has the power to coin money and determine it's worth. You can then still have paper or electronic representations of this. Easy enough. It doesn't need to be all gold or any other metal, just gold was the traditional big kahuna.

      Here's how to do it and stay inside constitutional mandates. We could go to a bancor like system, and I would like that idea expanded to include the top one hundred produced commodities (actual real stuff, tangibles, intangibles are too wonky to assi

  • by wowbagger (69688) on Friday August 21, 2009 @09:33AM (#29145541) Homepage Journal

    "There are no downsides to the average American to eliminating the fraud and abuse in the system, and it starts with the mother of all economic frauds and abuses, the Fed, who's existence is of great benefit to the bankers and politicians who would be the ones who would have to vote for its destruction."

    You missed a couple of clauses there.

    Without the Fed, bankers would have to offer reasonable interest rates on savings in order to have any money to lend - thus cutting into their profits.

    Without the Fed, the government would have to only spend money they actually have, rather than having an unlimited credit card upon which to charge the largess they use to buy our votes.

If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on the shoulders of giants. -- Isaac Newton

Working...