Trump Takes on the Fed

a reply to: ClovenSky

Around here the grocery stores like the food stamps, it makes it possible for employees to have jobs. It is not just Walmart that benefits by the bridge card food, it is the whole community because the workers can keep their jobs.

But you are right, we need to fix the problem, we need more manufacturing jobs in our country to make the things people need. Those workers from the factories pay taxes that support everyone.

a reply to: drewlander

I personally knew people who took government money in the past then shortly later went bankrupt. They were good at covering up the usage of the money. We do not need to be giving money to criminally minded people. We also should not be funding businesses that have no chance of making it, there should be an adequate business plan that shows feasability that the business will succeed, a realistic plan.

a reply to: LiberateEarth

Strange, your title says "Trump takes on the Fed" yet I see no mention of Trump in your post...What am I missing?

originally posted by: ClovenSky
It is even in our constitution that the power to issue and regulate money shall belong only to congress. The fed tried 2 times unsuccessfully to keep their central bank in power. I guess the 3rd try was the sweet spot on the night of xmas eve, 1913 through our wonderful woodrow wilson.

At the end of his life, he realized this great mistake:

President Wilson later came to regret signing the bill: "I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."

Wilson never said that about the Federal Reserve.

It's taken from speeches made before the Federal Reserve was created.

a reply to: Lumenari

The US constitution gives power to regulate money in the US. It also gives it the power to pass laws to carry out it's powers under the constitution.

There was no requirement for an amendment to set up a central bank.

a reply to: kelbtalfenek

You're right; I didn't make that clear.

It was the title of Ellen Brown's article that I quoted and it was in reference to him criticizing the Fed in a recent CNBC interview, where he broke with convention by doing that.

Trump is in a position to name new members of the Board of Governors but Ellen Brown points out the need for more fundamental change.

originally posted by: LiberateEarth
I have read Ellen Brown's book Web of Debt and have been following her attempts to establish public banking in the United States to try to reform our banking system so that we can have a healthy economy that serves we the people.

She seems to understand the history of banking and how banking works better than most.

In a recent article by her she points out what she believes is actually needed, rather than simply relying on who you name to be on the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve:

. . . Interesting proposals for how the Fed could inject new money into the economy include making direct loans for infrastructure (as the Chinese central bank is doing), making low- or no-interest loans to state and local governments for infrastructure, or refinancing the federal debt interest-free.

Better than changing who is at the helm of the central bank would be to change the rules governing it, something only Congress can do. Putting the needs of the American people first, as Trump promised in his campaign speeches, means making the Fed serve Main Street rather than Wall Street.

truthout.org...

I think we need new ideas like that rather than just focusing on replacing people or filling vacancies.

Interesting concepts, however, the reality of that would be increased spending and corruption at the state level of government. The same would be true with the federal government. Also, if the government is basically getting interest free money from the fed, there is no need to issue bonds any longer. How does that effect the interest rates for the worker bees who need to borrow money?

a reply to: pointessa

Interest rates the worker bees pay can range from 400 percent APR down to free credit card balance transfers.
The free market financial markets are only partially controlled by the Fed.
The major advantage of Central Banking is that regional State problems can be insured by the larger participation pool.
A Public bank would have to be huge to take advantage of the fractional reserve ratios the current Federal reserve has.

Maybe Trump can create some type of alternate money like JFK did or food stamps or something like that but he can't really eliminate the Fed or substantially change the Fed. That's pretty squarely under the control of Congress. All trump can do is try to appoint a leader of the Fed that supports his views.

a reply to: toms54

Maybe he could give a speech asking the American people to elect people to Congress who agree with his ideas.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Lumenari

The US constitution gives power to regulate money in the US. It also gives it the power to pass laws to carry out it's powers under the constitution.

There was no requirement for an amendment to set up a central bank.

There is a requirement for it to be backed by gold or silver.

Which our currency is not.

That is why I posted that quote about our currency having to be backed by gold or silver.

I think you missed the point.

originally posted by: LiberateEarth
a reply to: toms54

Maybe he could give a speech asking the American people to elect people to Congress who agree with his ideas.

He's doing that now. Let's see if it works. If Trump could explain the Fed to the average American, that would be pretty impressive.

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Lumenari

The US constitution gives power to regulate money in the US. It also gives it the power to pass laws to carry out it's powers under the constitution.

There was no requirement for an amendment to set up a central bank.

There is a requirement for it to be backed by gold or silver.

Which our currency is not.

That is why I posted that quote about our currency having to be backed by gold or silver.

I think you missed the point.

There is no requirement for it to be backed by anything.

Regarding the Constitution and fiat money, I found a page on Ellen Brown's blog that is relevant.

First, her blog post:

Why not gold?
Posted on September 23, 2007 by Ellen Brown

I’ve received many comments on returning to gold as the national medium of exchange. Here’s my short answer on why I think it’s an insufficient solution:

A dollar lent at 10 percent interest compounded annually becomes 10 dollars in under 25 years. That means that if the money supply were 100 percent gold, and if bankers lent out 10 percent of it at 10 percent interest compounded annually, in 25 years the bankers would own all the gold. To avoid that, either the money supply has to be expandable — which means allowing fiat money — or the taking of interest has to be outlawed, as it was in the Middle Ages.

ellenbrown.com...

And in response to one of the comments she got about the post:

Ellen Brown, on November 11, 2007 at 10:37 pm said:

Hi Drew, interesting blog! I think the Founding Fathers were intentionally vague about money in the Constitution. They argued about whether to allow Congress to issue paper money and they couldn’t agree on it, and they needed a document, so they just left it out.

ellenbrown.com...

My sense from reading her book Web of Debt years ago is that she's saying that there's nothing wrong with fiat money if the amount of it matches the needs of an economy as a means of exchange for goods and services.

a reply to: LiberateEarth

Her reasoning on interest is wrong.

It assumes banks operate without cost and aim to accumulate gold in a big vault Scrooge McDuck style.