This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Economists: End Or Drastically Downsize the Fed
Economics Professor and monetary expert Randall Wray told me thatwe should end the regional Federal Reserve banks, as they have such terrible conflicts of interest, strip out all regulatory power from the Fed (since it doesn’t believe ine regulation, anyway), and implement monetary policy with a very small staff. He is not opposed to moving operations over to Treasury and/or the FDIC.
Professor of economics Steve Keen told me that he would pretty much limit the Fed to being a clearing house between different banks. In other words, in his view, the Fed could be stripped of all of it’s regulatory, monetary and emergency bailout powers.
Economics professor Michael Hudson told me:
Before 1913 all the Fed’s operations were conducted quite well by the Treasury. (David McKinley’s book for the 1907 described this quite well a century ago.) the Fed’s aim was to Decentralize policy. The way things turned out, Wall Street leaders were given veto power. The role of Tim Geithner — in giving billions away in cash-for-trash trades the DAY before he was designed new Treasury Secretary (from his NY Fed position) tells it all.
But would the Treasury be different? The key is to put it back in the public interest, not Wall Street. Easier said than done.
***
[Congressman Dennis Kucinich's bill to nationalize the Fed, and his call on protesters to demand nationalization of the Fed] drastic, but it is the only way to check the fact that commercial banks create debt money recklessly, and now “casino capitalism” gambles that are bound to fail.
If we could implement the 100% reserve proposal and administer it correctly, I’m all for it. The government would NOT create credit for gambling, or ensure it.
PhD Economist Marc Faber said that protesters should Occupy the Federal Reserve.
Famed economist Milton Friedman wanted to end the Fed:
This evidence persuades me that at least a third of the price rise during and just after World War I is attributable to the establishment of the Federal Reserve System… and that the severity of each of the major contractions — 1920-1, 1929-33 and 1937-8 is directly attributable to acts of commission and omission by the Reserve authorities…
Any system which gives so much power and so much discretion to a few men, [so] that mistakes — excusable or not — can have such far reaching effects, is a bad system. It is a bad system to believers in freedom just because it gives a few men such power without any effective check by the body politic — this is the key political argument against an independent central bank…
To paraphrase Clemenceau, money is much too serious a matter to be left to the central bankers.
Austrian-school economists such as Murray Rothbard want to abolish the Fed:
Given this dismal monetary and banking situation, given a 39:1 pyramiding of checkable deposits and currency on top of gold, given a Fed unchecked and out of control, given a world of fiat moneys, how can we possibly return to a sound noninflationary market money? The objectives, after the discussion in this work, should be clear: (a) to return to a gold standard, a commodity standard unhampered by government intervention; (b) to abolish the Federal Reserve System and return to a system of free and competitive banking; (c) to separate the government from money; and (d) either to enforce 100 percent reserve banking on the commercial banks, or at least to arrive at a system where any bank, at the slightest hint of nonpayment of its demand liabilities, is forced quickly into bankruptcy and liquidation. While the outlawing of fractional reserve as fraud would be preferable if it could be enforced, the problems of enforcement, especially where banks can continually innovate in forms of credit, make free banking an attractive alternative.
I noted Tuesday:
The New York Sun reported that a … Nobel economist may have implied that the Fed should be abolished:
Thomas Sargent, the New York University professor who was announced Monday as a winner of the Nobel in economics … cites Walter Bagehot, who “said that what he called a ‘natural’ competitive banking system without a ‘central’ bank would be better…. ‘nothing can be more surely established by a larger experience than that a Government which interferes with any trade injures that trade. The best thing undeniably that a Government can do with the Money Market is to let it take care of itself.’”
Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz strongly dislikes the Fed:
Joseph Stiglitz – former head economist at the World Bank and a nobel-prize winner – said yesterday that the very structure of the Federal Reserve system is so fraught with conflicts that it is “corrupt” and undermines democracy.
Stiglitz said:
If we [i.e. the World Bank] had seen a governance structure that corresponds to our Federal Reserve system, we would have been yelling and screaming and saying that country does not deserve any assistance, this is a corrupt governing structure.
Stiglitz pointed out that – if another country had presented a plan to reform its financial system, and included a regulatory regime that copied the makeup of the Federal Reserve system – “it would have been a big signal that something is wrong.”
Stiglitz stressed that the Fed banks have clear conflicts of interest, since the banks are largely governed by a board of directors that includes officers of the very banks they’re supposed to be overseeing:
So, these are the guys who appointed the guy who bailed them out … Is that a conflict of interest?
They would say, ‘no conflict of interest, we were just doing our job. But you have to look at the conflicts of interest”…
The reason you talk about governance is because in a democracy you want people to have confidence … This is a structure that will undermine confidence in a democracy.
Indeed, as I noted Sunday:
Given that the 12 Federal Reserve banks are private – see this, this, this and this- the giant banks have a huge amount of influence on what the Fed does. Indeed, the money-center banks in New York control the New York Fed, the most powerful Fed bank. Indeed, Jamie Dimon – the head of JP Morgan Chase – is a Director of the New York Fed.
Former Fed officials agree. For example, the former Vice President of Dallas Federal Reserve said that the failure of the government to provide more information about the bailout signals corruption. As ABC writes:
Gerald O’Driscoll, a former vice president at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, said he worried that the failure of the government to provide more information about its rescue spending could signal corruption.
“Nontransparency in government programs is always associated with corruption in other countries, so I don’t see why it wouldn’t be here,” he said.
In fact, many high-level economists have blasted the Fed for bungling virtually everything it does.
And while – admittedly – many mainstream Keynesian economists may be hesitant to question the Fed’s existence because the Fed is a big part of the printing press on which Keynesianism relies (and the Fed has essentially bought the economics profession), the same arguments which Keynesians have made against the “too big to fail” banks apply to the Fed as well.
For example, Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman wants the big banks to be broken up because their very size warps the political system:
My view is that I’d love to see those financial giants broken up, if only for political reasons: it’s bad to have banks so big they can often write laws.
Former chief IMF economist Simon Johnson says much the same thing.
The Federal Reserve is an enormously powerful institution, which doles out tens of trillions of dollars – many to foreign banks and governments (and see this and this) – without democratic input of any nature whatsoever. While Fed apologists say that the bank’s “independence” must be preserved, the fact that the Fed has sent trillions overseas shows the Fed is somewhat independent of American interests.
And the fact that the Fed funneled trillions to the biggest banks – instead of main street or public works projects – runs counter to the wishes of most people and of Keynes’ actual prescriptions. (Keynesians speak of “saltwater” and “freshwater” schools of thought, depending on whether economists think money can be pumped anywhere and it will stimulate the economy, or it should be pumped in specific places. But the Fed hasn’t done either, but has instead given huge sums to the big banks, and then encouraged them to park the money). See this and this.
Liberal Keynesians should oppose such a gigantic concentration of power – shielded from accountability to the people – on basic principles.
Indeed, both liberals and conservatives should despise something which runs so counter to the “separation of powers” envisioned in the Constitution.
Note: The American people want the Fed ended or at least reined in as well. See this, this and this.
»
- advertisements -
It is not just the FED; the IMF and the biggie, the BIS can't take a shit w/o asking the Rothschilds for permission.
The whole monetary system needs to be revamped. Don't just "end the FED" without making sure the system itself is reorganized.
Hayek wrote something called "On Decentralizing Banks" or something like that. I am going to check it out today.
The only revamping we need to do is to go back to the Constitution. That's all.
Yeah, bring back real sound money with no government manipulation or intervention, do away with the government patronage system, including the FED, allow the market to function as an actual market, free of government tampering or their so-called solutions.
"Jamie Dimon – the head of JP Morgan Chase – is a Director of the New York Fed".
What more need be said?
DavidC
I wonder if he knows anyone in Congress. sarcasm.
dimon is just a mess hall sargent that answer to captain dave that answers to,... ?
He's in the club. No excuses.
The constitution says something about tyranny, foreign and domestic, and how it should be dealth with by the citizenry.
Shame, 99% percent of American's have been pacified to the level of retardation.
Half your comments are about how shitty, stupid, and uncaring Americans are. The fact is that a goodly chunk of them are awake. They know damn well that TPTB want to see some blood so they can justify ending the debate. And who is this person named American? And what posessions of his/hers have been 99% pacified? You left that part out. If you're going to pull the retard card, get your shit together first.
'goodly chunk', obviously not enough to make a differnce, that's why the U.S. now attacks other countries at will, as well as it's own citizens.
Even the U.S. citizenry who think they are awake are fast asleep...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiv2U3ZCFE4
Sheep of the highest 'caliber'.
I'm with you on the disease, FM, I just don't think it's time to write us off yet. I woke up when we invaded Libya. That's how hard-headed I was, I'm 44. Years ago a good buddy gave me a 1/4 oz gold piece as a wedding gift with the note, 'this is money'. I wish I'd looked into it then. A year ago I still thought warmonger Mark Levin was a great patriot. Now about half of what Kucinich says makes sense to me, and everything Ron Paul says. And frankly, just about everything you say - except about the people. They know the system sucks, but not enough yet know that it is evil. More realize it every day. Maybe I'm defensive about them because I woke up so recently, I know it's happening to others every day. Maybe we should hope they can prop their dung up for as long as possible, so our numbers swell as much as possible.
Congrats on waking up! You may already have good learning sources, but I couldn't resist suggesting a couple for the purposes of understading the whole picture and their endgame:
blacklistednews.com
infowars.com
prisonplanet.com
a brilliant man, G. Edward Griffin, has great resources: freedom-force.org and realityzone.com
NWOsurvivalguide.com (this one is a little cheesy in presentation, but the guy has compiled TONS of info and links to put the pieces of the puzzle together.
Two great books: "The Creature of Jekyl Island" by G. Edward Griffin and "Shadows of Power" by James Perloff.
A VERY POWERFUL READ: "Order Out of Chaos, Elite Sponsored Terrorism & The New World Order" by Paul Joseph Watson.
Watch youtube vids of G. Edward Griffin....he is a wise genius!
many thanks
ROFL!! I was going to junk you because I hate the sheep even worse than MonkeyBoy. But "retard card"? ...win!
Abolish fractional reserve lending.
Silver won't fail.
End the Fed, End the Looting, Start Prosecuting, do you read me you fuckface Holder?
Can't believe ZHers haven't caught on yet. They doing the same thing that they have done before they are just going global with the idea. Say goodbye to the euro. Say goodbye to the dollar. Say hello to the SUPER fed the IMF. The euro will fail first, then the dollar.
Isn't World Government WONDERFUL?!
We"ve caught on alright.
I just doubt that it will work this time.
Too many cross currents. Too much other info out there.
A basic law of propaganda is that you must control all sources of info too be successful.
The great plan is falling apart.
Enjoy the show.
1. Constitutional amendment: Abolish government borrowing. Mandate government creation of money. States only have the right to allow federal government to create money. Only voting citizens may contribute funding for political campaigns. Institute terms limits for all politicians. Only individual citizens may lobby government.
THANK YOU!!!
NO amendments. The Constitution is perfect in this aspect, far more well thought out than your tripe.
My problem with your post is the usage of the word "Citizen" which is designated in the 14th Amendment. Instead use the word "Sovereign" as used in the Preamble of the Constitution. The LEAGAL difference is enormous. One OWNS the country and the other is a SERF in it. Milestones
Aren't you perpetuating the disease?
What about this amendment.
Abolish government borrowing.
Mandate a government standard for money created through private mints.
Mandate that States have the power to over-ride Federalism.
Abolish political parties via mandated constitutional republic governance.
Don't tread on me.
Wow - Three junks...WTF
Brianshell. Who the hell junked you for such a great set of ideas? I didn't know Woodrow Wilson's ghost was a ZH'er
Mr. Stiglitz,, as Chief Economist of the World Bank, should have rendered a better service rejecting the proportional WB funding and salary provided by USA & the Fed while in charge.
It´s easy to play the anti-system game now...
Sure it is a great thought to end the FED, but any idea coming from Mr Stiglitz´s mind would make seem Timmy, Barry & Bernie Paladins of the anti-cronyism and monetary orthodoxy.
The Fed does not have conflicts of interest. The Fed's only interest is to act for its shareholders, whose identity is carefully guarded.
The Federal Reserve is not the central bank of the United States. It is the agent of foreign powers that conquered the American republic nearly 100 years ago, and immediately set about dismantling the republic and constructing in its place a world-spanning empire paid for by counterfeit money.
The congress that voted for the creation of the Federal Reserve acted unconstitutionally and treasonously, and the Fed's current supporters are ignorant or treasonous.
Uninformed people do not want to end the Fed. Uninformed people support the Fed.
If they are on the left, they support it because they like the idea of state power controlling the money supply. If they are on the right, they support it because they have been fooled by the idiotic notion that bankers should somehow be 'independent' of democratic control. ( And because the Congress has for so long leaned to the left. )
Both groups of Fed supporters are fools and traitors. They are Stockholm hostages. They are cattle who love their ranchers. They are Sabine Women -- except that the creatures that have them in thrall have less in common with cattlemen or early Romans than they do with the face-huggers from Aliens.
Not to mention that the Congress that voted the FED into existence consisted of a gargantuan total of 3...yes, 3, people!!!
Could we exume those 3 bodies and hang them in the public square just for fun?
Owners of the Federal Reserve:
Rothschild Bank of London
Rothschild Bank of Berlin
Warburg Bank of Hamburg
Warburg Bank of Amsterdam
Lazard Brothers of Paris
Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy
Chase Manhattan Bank of New York
Goldman, Sachs of New York
Lehman Brothers of New York (in receivership)
Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York
Alleged owners of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
There ... fixed it for you.
Actually, some of those banks no longer exist (Lehman, Kuhn Loeb) and some have never existed (Rothschild in Berlin, Warburg in Amsterdam, Seif in Italy), as far as I can find.
Further, each of the 12 Federal Reserve Bank branches in the US has its own vote and its own shareholders. We need Ron Paul to get more accurate information through the House banking committee ... no country should have its money supply managed by unknown foreigners.
these are not 'natural persons' , this list is the names of corporate shells.
i want a list of every individual with greater than a .1% ownership stake or managerial stake ( a fund that represents owners ) ( as calculated painstakingly by finding out the owners of every interest in these shells ) in the fed.
how many people have an interest of greater than .1% of the fed and how many people manage this .1% or greater stake ? put that list up online.
what you might find is that...actually it is the people of countries, the treasuries , etc...that own the fed, and that the fed is worthless except as a vehicle for transfering managerial and 'performance' fees and bonuses by way of the ownership strucutre of the fed and the major banks it supports with cheap money----the fed itself is a redistribution scheme based arround the now dubious idea that the banking system provides a service to society by way of allocating capital in an efficient manner. ( they are now simply hoarding their own printed capital ). some of the elites are prepared for a complete destruction of the fed, because they own REAL businesses and REAL assets as well that can survive any banking collapse--REAL factors of production rather than money itself. different elites have power over different areas of the REAL economy. banks can die for 30 years , revolution will happen, bu the elites will remain, and when the time comes the bankers will come back out of the woodwork to service them. and begin growing themselves once again.
You want a list? Get one and post it. You sound like a lazy welfare class entitlement person, demand demand demand ~ that everyone else do the work and you lay back and profit.
lesterbegood - how does one confirm this list. I have done a few searches trying to figure out who in fact owns the Fed. Thanks. I know for sure I can check off the 99%.
+1776
the FEd will first end you...who want to end the fed. They are the Oligarchs of USA.
Let's dance.
You don't downsize criminal organizations! If you can...you eliminate them!!
Definately don't elect one of their members President!!!
This issue is death for Cain. The ultimate insider has already lied about his position on auditing the Fed, and about the fact that he considers such questions - and thus the inquisitors - stupid, as he wrote in his upcoming book, "Herman Cain - Once you go black you'll never go back."
I may have that title wrong.
LMAO - Thanks for the giggle!
If the Fed could be dismantled or nationalised (to prevent commercial banks from creating debt money out of thin air), it would be one down, a couple dozen more evil agencies of the government to go.
Ron Paul and David Kucinich are probably the only living proof that American politicians are not completely insane.
Don't know who "David Kucinich" is, but Dennis is the pol w/hot wife and UFO beliefs. - Ned
Plenty of sane, honest Americans here:
http://republicfortheunitedstates.org
End the FUCKING Fed!!
End their monopoly on the creation of money. End fractional reserve banking. Return money creation to private mints.
"conflicts of interest "
Fed is "private"
Naw.....
My banker told me it ain't so.
Ron Paul said it first, and said it best: End the Fed!