After-the-Fed Proposed Solutions

The first thing we need to do Mary, is not let just anyone set up a new system without the peoples ok on it. The ones set to implement it need to be screened very well. I`m sure, that if the Fed is removed, like mice coming out of the woodwork, there will be many who would want their agenda put in place, and this is what we would have to screen very carefully. The biggest problem I see in this, is this would be no different than voting for a president. And as you may have noticed over the years, majority voting doesn`t always get you what we really need. People can be swayed by something that looks and sounds good, but that does not mean it will do the job it was intended to do.

In other words, would we want the present shills in office to just take this matter in their hands to implement a new system?

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Private courts would not allow such fraud.

How do you know?

Originally posted by Mary Rose

How do you know?

Because the court isn't benefiting from the fraud.

In the case of a government run court, the court directly benefits.

reply to post by FiatLux


No.

We're in a hell of a mess. No doubt about it. Not only do we need a new monetary system, but we need reform of how we elect our leaders. As it stands now, good people are often kept out of the system, because they can't compete with the moneyed power structure that is entrenched in both major parties. I think we need to ban political fund raising and advertising - get the money out of politics.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Basically the printing press and the credit card must be taken away from the politicians.

AMEN to that solution.
good luck keeping them
away from the cookie jar.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I think we need to ban political fund raising and advertising - get the money out of politics.

AMEN to that too !!!
wow, we're on a roll on this thread

Originally posted by mnemeth1Because the court isn't benefiting from the fraud.

Hmmm. That's interesting.

Mnemeth1,

Tell us about The Suede College of Austrian Economics. How does it compare to the ideas of The Writings of Professor Antal E. Fekete?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by FiatLux

 

No.

We're in a hell of a mess. No doubt about it. Not only do we need a new monetary system, but we need reform of how we elect our leaders. As it stands now, good people are often kept out of the system, because they can't compete with the moneyed power structure that is entrenched in both major parties. I think we need to ban political fund raising and advertising - get the money out of politics.

That is why I said a while back, we need to do away with the party system we now have, and let those who want to run for office do so without a party stamp behind their name. People seem to vote for party, not what the person CAN do. Just watch the upcoming elections to see if it is more of a party vote, and not a person vote. Just because they have a D or an R behind their name, doesn`t always qualify them for the job.

reply to post by Mary Rose


I'm not familiar with this guy at all, which makes me highly suspicious.

His site touts "The New Austrian School" - which also sets off some alarm bells.

The Austrian School is not new, it's been around almost as long as Keynesianism.

In doing a little digging, it looks like his beliefs are not in accordance with Rothbard and Mises on the issue of monetary theory.

blog.mises.org...

Originally posted by mnemeth1
His site touts "The New Austrian School" - which also sets off some alarm bells.

The Austrian School is not new, it's been around almost as long as Keynesianism.

I got the information from the Comments section of the Blair article. It was posted by PAGAU who wrote:

Dr. Fekete has given up on those in the Austrian school who insist on an absolute gold standard and has started his own “New Austrian” School. I believe his view to be very important and anyone in this debate should spend some quality time with his writings. Dr. Fekete advocates a hard money standard that is in the control of the people and not the banks or the government. He says this could be accomplished by simply re-opening the mint to gold as it was in the early days of the USA.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I have stumbled across an article by Eric Blair on the website Activist Post entitled "The After-the-Fed Solutions Debate Begins: Greenbackers vs. Goldbugs" . . .

I found the Blair article posted on Ellen Brown's Web of Debt blog. In the Comments section on her blog is a good remark, I think:

Joseph Danison, on October 13, 2010 at 5:56 pm Said:

The question is not fundamentally what we use for money, but whether the money system is publicly or privately managed. Who controls the money?

Money is power. Is the money power a private prerogative or a public one? Another way to frame the question: are we democratic or not? In a democratic system, the money power belongs to the people. In non-democratic systems, the money power is exercised by unelected sovereigns and oligarchs.

All money is fiat money because its use as a representation of value is enshrined in law or custom, which is common law. Gold or any other commodity used as money has no magical self-regulating virtue. Gold advocates believe that the scarcity of gold is a virtue that prevents inflation, which is like praising a lack of food because it prevents obesity.

A publicly owned monetary system is democratic; a private monetary system is not. We are nominally a democratic country, but in reality we are an oligarchy.

The question is power. The only power available to the vast majority of individuals called “the people” is government operated by and for the same. Wealthy minorities organize and create influence far beyond their numbers by virtue of their control of the monetary system.

Without government, there is no democracy, no free market, no economic justice. The anti-government rhetoric most commonly associated with hard money advocates, is anti-democratic.

The money question is a question of whether or not we will become a democracy after these 234 years. At present we are a democracy in name only.

reply to post by Mary Rose


There's so many logical fallacies packed in to that statement I don't know where to begin.

Anyone that thinks a money should be non-scarce and that all money is "fiat" isn't even worth my time commenting on.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Dr. Fekete has given up on those in the Austrian school who insist on an absolute gold standard and has started his own “New Austrian” School. I believe his view to be very important and anyone in this debate should spend some quality time with his writings. Dr. Fekete advocates a hard money standard that is in the control of the people and not the banks or the government. He says this could be accomplished by simply re-opening the mint to gold as it was in the early days of the USA.

Fekete's proposal differs slightly from traditional Austrians who simply want government to stop enforcing a monopoly privilege of money.

The Austrians know that people will chose the best money and that competition in currencies is a necessity for the money to remain sound.

It sounds like Fekete is proposing government run the mint, but this is pointless since private mints can do the job better.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Anyone that thinks a money should be non-scarce and that all money is "fiat" isn't even worth my time commenting on.

I agree with him that money should not be scarce. We want as many people as possible to be prosperous. As long as the supply matches the production of the people of goods and services to purchase with the money, inflation will be kept in check.

Regarding "fiat" money - maybe what he was saying was that "fiat" means "by decree," and if a form of money becomes the currency for the exchange of goods and services it will by common law - which comes out of court cases rather than legislation - be fiat money.

all the money systems mentioned have the ability of some people to accunmulate more money at the expense of others...

what about a really fair and restructured model of 'Carbon Credits'... an individual will be alloted a finite
ammount of 'carbon credits', their allotment would be based on the accepted carbon footprint for a maximum
of 120 years, disbursed annually....

after which your remains would be recycled something like the "soylent green" dystopia.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Anyone that thinks a money should be non-scarce and that all money is "fiat" isn't even worth my time commenting on.

I agree with him that money should not be scarce. We want as many people as possible to be prosperous. As long as the supply matches the production of the people of goods and services to purchase with the money, inflation will be kept in check.

Regarding "fiat" money - maybe what he was saying was that "fiat" means "by decree," and if a form of money becomes the currency for the exchange of goods and services it will by common law - which comes out of court cases rather than legislation - be fiat money.

Money does not make a society prosperous.

If the Fed handed all of us a million dollars, we would not be any richer.

While a fiat money means the courts will enforce payment of debts, the term fiat is reserved for unbacked currencies. It is forced on the public at gun point because the public would not voluntarily accept it as currency.

reply to post by St Udio


Carbon credits - very scary - part of the global warming scam and the NWO agenda.

What should we replace the Fed with?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by St Udio

 

Carbon credits - very scary - part of the global warming scam and the NWO agenda.

What should we replace the Fed with?

nothing.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Okay.

Tell us about your The Suede College of Austrian Economics.