Capitalism is turning into a dirty word. I don’t even like using it any more. But what we now have is a long shot from what capitalism used to be. The capitalism we now have is evil. I never thought I would agree with Michael Moore. ;) But while his solution is basically more government involvement, regulation–basically socialism–the real solution is a leveling of the playing field. Otherwise known as a real free market system. While there would undoubtably still be cases of inequality, it is certain that executive managers, bankers, lawyers, and those in real-estate would in large part have their paychecks brought back to reality.

Principle: basic assumption: an important underlying law or assumption required in a system of thought
Encarta ® World English Dictionary

Issue: something for discussion or of general concern
Encarta ® World English Dictionary

A coworker of mine, an ex-army vet, reminded me of the disturbing fact that there are more “military contractors” in Afghanistan, then there are regular troops. The difference is, while in practice the military has little responsibility to the public, such mercenary companies have none at all.

As Bastiat argued, human labor never goes unemployed. If people are willing to work, there will always be opportunities for them to do so.

This is a blindly optimistic and one sided argument and you know it. Employment and labor can be thought of a commodities like any other. There is a difference between the supply of labor, and the DEMAND for it. In other words, people’s desire to work means nothing when there is not a demand for work to be done. This is compounded by the fact that a capitalist system puts somewhat strict limits on what types of work can be rewarded. So again an abstract desire to work does not equate with an abstract need for work, only a concrete one.

I have always wondered at the ability for capitalism to reward largely superfluous pursuits, like banking, lawyers, real estate, executive managers, disposable consumer goods, etc. While at the same time it seems to seriously undercompensate those jobs which are extremely important to society, like teachers, nurses, farmers, child care workers, janitors, secretaries, etc. I believe this is one of the problems that Karl Marx misguidedly attempted to address, and unfortunately failed.

No, I banned you. Red flagging your name to facilitate the ban is the way I implemented it technically, but the ban was not conditional only on your use of your name. So, while I will respond to the various points you’ve listed here, the ban remains and I’d prefer you respect that and move on.

My point is simple: the Fed is not the enemy. There is no enemy, but one: Satan. Aside from him, the rest of us are all in this together. There is no enemy.

There is an enemy, Satan. And then there is no enemy. Which is it? (Note that the questions I’ll pose are rhetorical since you won’t have an opportunity to respond.) Satan is not a one-man band. He implements his schemes with help of his mortal minions who, whether they know it or not, are doing his bidding.

Theft is immoral. Theft is of Satan. Theft is exactly what the Fed does through the printing of new money. My grandparents, living on their savings, are having that savings eroded before their eyes through an indirect inflation tax. This is brought about as a direct result of the Fed printing money out of nowhere (or lowering the interest rate, or extending credit, or using any of the tools it has at its disposal). For all the flowery prose that wraps the Fed’s intentions, their core existence relies upon theft. So yes, they are the enemy (one of many).

If you remove the Fed, do any of you have any idea what would actually happen? You have no idea.

We have had two central banks before in this nation’s history. Their termination did not cause the world to implode. Sure, nobody knows the specifics of what would happen if the Fed were to be abolished, but that’s meaningless. What matters is that we do what’s right, not what’s convenient.

You remove the Fed and you destroy America’s economy, because the Fed and its actions are so directly attached to America’s economy.

And what do you call the 97% devaluation of the dollar? The Fed has done a good job on its own of destroying America’s economy. That they have deceived so many into thinking that they’re helping and not hurting it is a testament to either the ignorance of the masses or the masterful propaganda they put out. The Fed is a cancerous growth that has slowly been sapping away the energy of the nation. Drastic intervention, though painful, is the only remedy to save the body. It won’t be pretty, but the alternative is a steady spiral downwards at an increasing rate. Look to Zimbabwe for an example of where we’re headed.

You remove the Fed and millions of jobs will be lost.

So? I’m not here to support whatever it takes to maintain full employment. (Although that’s one of the Fed’s stated goals, and they’ve done a horrible job at it, of course.) I’m here to do what is right. As Bastiat argued, human labor never goes unemployed. If people are willing to work, there will always be opportunities for them to do so. (They just have to be willing to adapt as necessary.)

Your point is a red herring, because it distracts from the main point — should the Fed exist at all? It’s like saying that we should never end the war, because it employs tens of thousands of contractors. Well, if the war is wrong, it should be ended, no matter the consequences. No need to employ fearmongering as an intellectual defense of the Fed.

Speaking of fearmongering, you then say:

Millions of Americans will go hungry, and eventually die.

You state this again later, asking me if I’m “ready to be responsible for the deaths of millions of Americans” and twice more in your response to Jarvie. Ahhh, the sky is falling! What a ludicrous comment. It’s so out there, it doesn’t even merit a response. So, moving on…

Thus why I am extremely glad no serious American thinker will take this kind of thinking with anything but a laugh at how infantile an idea it is.

Ah, right. So, 75% of people favor auditing the Fed to open up its books, 70% don’t think the Fed is doing a good job, and Ron Paul’s new book about ending the Fed is selling very well. But not a “serious American thinker” among the lot. Right.

I must say, I haven’t missed your absence. These assertions are so baseless that I can’t help but realize how much time I’m wasting in responding to them.

You have to work with the Fed in place. It is now an established system.

Our global military presence is “an established system”, but somehow I think that being the “good Democrat” you are, you’d still favor changing that system. So much for ideals…

Connor is not exactly clear what would follow the removal of the Fed.

Easy: the same thing that existed before the Fed was put in place. Sound money. Market forces. Natural interest rates. Restraint on government. Smaller bubbles, if any. In short: a more moral economic system. Sounds horrible, doesn’t it?

You banned my name previously. I found Bob worked, so I commented. If you removed the ban on my name, I will comment again. :)

I welcome the contrarian points, and I’ll respond to them later this weekend when I have the time.

Until then, might I recommend not using the pseudonym “Bob” to mask your true identity. You are, in fact, a person who has been banned from this blog before. You are to be commended for not using the same style of discourse you once did when commenting under your real name, but perhaps this is intentional to further conceal your identity.

The gig’s up, man.

I’m quite familiar with central banking principles. They precede the founding of the Fed, and are in fact principles begun by the Founding Fathers, and of course England too. To think this is some communist plot is simply ridiculous. Skousen was wrong and always will be wrong.

‘Ending the Fed’ in my book would be requiring greater transparency and accountability. ‘Ending’ it in its current incarnation.

But that’s not “ending the Fed.” That’s changing it. That’s allowing the Fed to continue existing. Maybe I am not understanding Connor’s point well, but he seems pretty clear that he wants the Fed done away with. Much like Ron Paul and the others who think like them.

Look at the Federal Reserves alleged purpose and then look at its performance (Listen to Ed Griffin’s Speech, Creature from Jekyll Island)

There are several plans to transfer off of the debt money system that we have. Example, some say we should follow the monetary policy followed by Lincoln using Greenbacks. Others call for a return to the gold standard. There are no provisions in the Constitution for a central bank and there have been many times in US where we have not had one. I believe in the constitution and the power given to congress to coin money and regulate the value thereof.

Cursed is he who trusts in the arm of Man or the Board of the Federal Reserve. Investigate seriously our claims and Ron Paul and then judge for yourself.

Wait, what?

I do appreciate your clarifications, Bob. Some of what you discuss shows that you have, indeed, given this some thought.

But how do you get from “greater transparency and checks” to “millions will die.”?

It reminds me of those in foreign policy circles attempting to argue that the *only* alternative to ‘aggressive and secretive worldwide military action on behalf of corporations’ is ‘total and complete mindless pacifism and giving up the sovereignty of our nation’ . . . what a waste of an argument! What thinking, moral person would possibly argue for that?

“End the Empire” does not mean ‘dissipate our military, lay down our weapons, and invite imminent, unchallenged conquer’. “End the Fed” does not likely mean ‘tank the economy, completely devalue our currency, end all economic influence, and impoverish the nation faster than we already are.’

‘Ending the Fed’ in my book would be requiring greater transparency and accountability. ‘Ending’ it in its current incarnation.

‘Ending the Empire’ would be to focus on defending our own sovereignty and building our own domestic self-reliance without terrorizing and exploiting other nations and trying to control worldwide puppet regimes.

In both cases, I believe there are many, many, many ways forward that *build* strength and security (fiscal strength and sovereign defense) with less immorality, hypocrisy, and inequality than our current systems. But perhaps I am not lunatic enough to fabricate these straw-man argument systems you are so anxious to tear down . . .

Please explain more this transfer system. What exactly are you thinking will replace the Fed? How will you ensure there is a smooth transition into whatever new system you want in place? See, when challenged, and when shown that your words, if placed, would be catastrophic to Americans, millions would die, you back off and say this will be a smooth transition. But that is not what Connor wishes. He states quite explicitly that he wants to “end the empire.” You cannot “end the empire” without diminishing not just its clout and influence, but also reducing its size, both in its ability to project, and of course its actual physical size. Millions would die.

More importantly, Connor never states exactly how you transition from the Fed to, well, whatever else. Connor is not exactly clear what would follow the removal of the Fed.

Do people asking for the end of the Fed want there to simply be a distinct void in it’s place?
perhaps that’s where Bob and the others are not understanding eachother… perhaps he never realized that they didn’t just mean a coupe d’etat on the economy, or a violent revolution.
Maybe there’s a transfer method.
I think them there americans are smart ones that can solve such a dificult situation… and i bet it will help if they try to aim for a legal, constitutional, transparent and moral system. (We can hope and dream I suppose)

If you remove the Fed, do any of you have any idea what would actually happen? You have no idea. The first thing that would happen is a huge turmoil in the markets. You remove such a big player from the system, the system has to reconfigure to the new settings. You remove the Fed and you give the Chinese the world on a platter. They are quite ready and willing to take charge of the financial world. Currently the Chinese have three of the biggest banks in the world. You remove the Fed and you destroy America’s economy, because the Fed and its actions are so directly attached to America’s economy. You remove the Fed and millions of jobs will be lost. Millions of Americans will go hungry, and eventually die. The Fed may be corrupt (as are most government entities, and also most if not all corporations), but the idea that removing it will somehow solve all our problems is not the kind of thinking that gives me comfort in putting people like you in charge of this country. Thus why I am extremely glad no serious American thinker will take this kind of thinking with anything but a laugh at how infantile an idea it is.

If you wish to be taken seriously, talk seriously. You cannot remove the Fed. You have to work with the Fed in place. It is now an established system. It is credentialed. It is a player. If you remove it, you will do worse to America than Mao did when he revolutionized China, or Robespierre did to the French. That kind of shock tends to have severe negative effects on the system. Are you ready to be responsible for the deaths of millions of Americans? Are you ready to so weaken America that America’s enemies will fly in with ease to take charge of this great land of ours?

So, this is a rather pointless trolling exercise unless you actually *make a point* regarding why you support a Federal Reserve with governmental powers but no governmental checks and/or wildly expensive Imperial warfare and/or whatever you could possibly disagree with in this post (and/or comments).

Please clarify, for goodness sake! lol :)

Nobody here, myself included, is claiming to “represent” them. I do, however, share a common zeal and goal: liberty. And that, today, is something that the vast majority of people are either fearful or ignorant of.

Yeah, ‘cuz those Founding Fathers really screwed things up, didn’t they?