Alternatives to the Fed

Bills representing precious metals in which you can exchange the bill with the actual metals anytime you wanted.

 

No central bank. That's the alternative

 

That's just wrong. There is always enough gold to take over from our fiat currency (or any fiat currency). Even if there were 100x the current amount of currency, the same amount of gold could still replace it all. Quantity of currency means nothing.

Central banking can only exist when government makes it so. They don't spontaneously form in the free market. All you would need to abolish central banking is to repeal the Federal Reserve Act.

After that's done legal tender laws need abolished also. Capital gains and sales tax on precious metals also need to be abolished so that there are no artificial limits to using gold and siler as currency.

Banking needs to be private and totally separated from government. No FDIC, no GSEs like Fannie and Freddie, no regulations, nothing. There must be complete separation of economy and state.

Then we would once again become a prosperous nation. No central bank would form ever again as long as government stays out of it.

 

Would people who already legally own gold just become the new millionaires/billionaires? How would this not be the greatest re-distribution of wealth in history?

 

There would be some redistribution, yes.

 

The only people that will lose wealth are those that keep their savings in currency or bonds. Most people don't keep all their assets liquid.

 

I am in favor of you going back to school OP, or at least proof reading your posts.

But fuck Centralized banking.

Activist Post: 5 Alternatives to the Federal Reserve

Ezra Klein - The Problems With the Federal Reserve -- and Its Alternatives

An Alternative to the Federal Reserve


There are some alternatives.

Edit: I pretty much just wanted to point out your spelling mistakes I'm an ass like that.

 

[quote name='"LSYouTiger"']No central bank. That's the alternative[/quote]



This man is correct. A central bank kills an economy. This is proven.

There was an alternative, and that was basing our money on gold...but they just went and abandoned that.

So in reality, the answer is to dismantle the large police government we live under

 

[ame]www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qZszkWuADM[/ame]

 

Uhmmm a good alternative is for the Congress to do there fucking constitutionally mandated job and print and issue all money...

Inflation is just a tax payed to all banks and created by letting the banks control the issue and flow of money..

 

That's not a good alternative.

And it's not constitutionally mandated for Congress to issue currency. One of their powers is to 'coin money', and since the only thing states are allowed to make legal tender is gold and silver, those should be the only things used when Congress coins money.

Also inflation is a tax to government and everyone closely connected with government. If you take it out of the Fed's control and gave it to Congress, the tax would still exist. The problem isn't who inflates the currency, it's inflation itself.

 

When someone states something it's cool for them to just throw it out there, but if you insist on questioning someone's knowledge then back it up with some facts and not just state your personal opinions as factual data..Please

Who's job is it to issue all monies

The monetary policy of the United States is the domain of the Federal Resene Bank and not the government. This process is in direct contradiction of the U.S. Constitution that reposes the responsibility of the monetary system with the Congress of the United States. On April 27, 1936, hearings were held by the House Committee on Banking and Currency. The preamble of the bill - HR 9216 of the Seventy-fourth Congress, states, "The committee had under consideration the bill (HR 92163 to restore to Congress its constitutional power to issue money and regulate the value thereof; to provide monetary income to the people of the United States at a fixed and equitable purchasing power of the dollar, ample at all times to enable the people to buy wanted goods and services at full capacity of the industries and commercial facilities of the United States; to abolish the practice of creating bank deposits by private groups upon fractional reserves, and for other purposes."

Inflation who gains

Governments can potentially gain revenue from inflation. The most obvious and the most emphasized by libertarians: by issuing fiat money the government benefits in the same way as an undetected counterfeiter. Simple fiat money, such as the Continentals issued during the American Revolution or the Greenbacks and Confederate currency issued during the Civil War, is easiest to understand. It is directly spent to cover government purchases, and the resulting increase in prices over what they otherwise would have been reduces the purchasing power of money held by the general public. The government gains by exactly the same amount the public loses in this implicit tax on real cash balances. Economists have dignified this implicit tax with the term seigniorage.

Currently nearly all fiat money is instead issued by central banks, such as the Federal Reserve. This arrangement makes seigniorage a bit more complicated, sometimes requiring a well-taught course in economics to comprehend it, but the final result is identical. One arm of the government, the central bank, creates fiat money and lends it to another arm of the government, the Treasury, which then spends it, in a process known as monetizing the debt. In the case of the United States the Central bank is privately owned.

So all things being equal your correct, unfortunately in life things are rarely equal. The constitution does say "coin" but in the late 1800's coin was the term for all monies, and the government does gain from inflation, but only if they either control the monetary flow or at the very least control the bank printing the money...So lets call it a push.

 

The bolded is the only applicable part of your whole post. The rest does nothing to contradict what I said.

As far as bolded. First of all the Constitution was written in the late 1700's, not 1800's, and coin does not mean all forms of currency. Paper money at that time was termed "bills of credit". Coining means exactly what it sounds like, coining.

Article 1: Section 10

This clearly shows that they are separate and defined. If coin also meant emit bills of credit then there would have been no reason to state both. The founders clearly did not want the government to issue paper currency. They just experienced the hyper inflation of the Continental Currency and knew full well the folly inherit in it.

 

Bill of credit is a phrase from Article One, Section 10, Clause One of the United States Constitution. It refers to a document similar to a banknote that is issued by a government and designed to circulate as money. Because the framers of the Constitution sought to limit the issuance of currency, it explicitly prohibits the states from issuing bills of credit. British colonies in North America would issue bills of credit in order to deal with financial crises, although doing so repeatedly would result in inflation. The documents would circulate as if they were currency, and colonial governments would accept them as payment for debts like taxes. They were not always considered legal tender for private debts.

 

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress

<<Back | Table of Contents | Next>>

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

I hate getting in these pissing contests with people who insist there right and use a word or gesture to justify throwing out overwhelming evidence that is contrary to there view.

 

From the tenth amendment center...

Throughout the 19th century, many argued that Congress had no power to issue paper money, or at least no power to make paper legal tender. The records of the Constitutional Convention are ambiguous on the subject,but the ratification records and other contemporaneous documents are clear: Congress has both powers. However, in the 19th century the full ratification records were no longer readily available. As a result, the Supreme Court struggled for years over a question that should have been answered easily.

* During the 1840s, lawyers for political disputants spun the idea that in guaranteeing each state a “republican form of government,” the Constitution forbids states from using methods of direct democracy, such as initiatives and/or referenda. The argument is absurd to anyone familiar with 18th century word usage, or with the Founders’ immersion in the history of ancient Greece and Rome. But such things had been largely forgotten.

* In 1823, a Supreme Court justice writing a trial-level opinion without his fellow justices added some unnecessary musings about what he thought the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV might mean. His language was not well considered: Not only were there internal inconsistencies, but the language showed unfamiliarity with the background of the Clause. Yet this passage became the basis for continuing misconceptions among commentators and judges who had never learned what “privilege” or “immunity” had meant in 18th century law.

We are fortunate today in that the Internet enables us to reconstruct 18th century meanings. But technology is not enough. We must beware of the results of the Great Forgetting. And we must equip ourselves with the history and language skills necessary to recreate the message the Founders intended to give us.

In private life, Rob Natelson is a long-time conservative/free market activist, but professionally he is a constitutional scholar whose meticulous studies of the Constitution's original meaning have been published or cited by many top law journals. (See: Our American Constitution |  About Rob Natelson.) Most recently, he co-authored The Origins of the Necessary and Proper Clause (Cambridge University Press) and The Original Constitution (Tenth Amendment Center). After a quarter of a century as Professor of Law at the University of Montana, he recently retired to work full time at Colorado's Independence Institute.

In case you want to check out the site or full article...The Great Forgetting

 

You've provided nothing but arguments from random people. All meaningless. The only important pieces to consider are the constitution itself (which doesn't support your stance) and the convention and ratification records (you have provided none).

 

Actually your splitting hairs over wording. I think Congressional and court rulings records would be satisfactory but whatever. and now im done

 

Yeah I guess opinion and interests of a banking cartel are more important than the constitution anyway