SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : 5spl -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: LPS5 who wrote (1276)10/10/2003 9:55:16 PM
From: Sidney Reilly  Respond to of 2534
 
The libertarian case for the abolishment of government intervention in money and banking rests on the insight that the latter serves only redistributive purposes.

I don't think you'll ever get control of the money supply and monetary policy away from the Council on Foreign Relations. They control the Federal Reserve and world banking. And they have plenty of clout in government to make sure they keep control. Alan Greenspan has been a member of the CFR forever.



To: LPS5 who wrote (1276)10/11/2003 1:30:17 AM
From: ahhaha  Respond to of 2534
 
All government intervention in this field boils down to schemes that increase the quantity of money beyond what it otherwise would be.

Nope. Most FED officials would freely admit that they don't know "what it should be".

For several years FED has allowed the free market to determine the cost and supply of money, because there is no need for their intervention beyond supporting the level of transactions. Thus, there is no current need for a free market in money. FED hasn't created any money.

There is a market in credit. Credit is now the only true money and FED is definitely in control of it although their control isn't needed as is the case with what Hulsmann defines as money. FED hasn't created any credit either.

Thus, as far as intervention is concerned, the AG FED is doing what the McChesney-Martin FED did, and the most that can be done: nothing.