Why We Must End The Fed

I'll start this out with a warning. This is a long post, the bulk of which I wrote late last year, in the hopes that some of it might be avoided.

Contrary, to the story told in the popular media, there were in fact a large number of trained economists and investors who predicted and warned about the situation we are now in. Of course, they were called kooks and rarely got much air time in the media or in college campuses. Ron Paul, is likely the one most of us would know.

Anyway, when the "Schiff started hitting the fan", Glenn Beck was one of the few major media figures to point bring up the Weimar Republic.

Here's my post which I titled "Weimar America"



Sorry, they pulled that one since they want you to see the full film.



I've put a lot of videos and links about America's debt and financial condition in this post. I think that only by understanding this condition fully can one see the connection between America today and that of Weimar Germany.

Most people, to the extent they know anything about the Weimar Republic know only a few things-- it was a period of interesting art, Mann, Kandinsky, Klee, Grosz; -- something about carts of money to buy loaves of bread-- and finally, that it was shortly followed by the Third Reich.







Here is an extended quote from the book, The Age Of Inflation. The roots of Germany's problems began with the promises of Bismark's welfare state and the way Germany financed the costs of WWI.

"Like all the other banks, it offered assistance to the central government in financing the war effort. Since taxes are always unpopular, the German government preferred to borrow the needed amounts of money rather than raise its taxes substantially. To this end it was readily assisted by the Reichsbank, which discounted most treasury obligations.

A growing percentage of government debt thus found its way into the vaults of the central bank and an equivalent amount of printing press money into people's cash holdings. In short, the central bank was monetizing the growing government debt.

By the end of the war the amount of money in circulation had risen fourfold and prices some 140 percent. Yet the German mark had suffered no more than the British pound, was somewhat weaker than the American dollar but stronger than the French franc. Five years later, in December 1923, the Reichsbank had issued 496.5 quintillion marks, each of which had fallen to one-trillionth of its 1914 gold value.[1]

How stupendous! Practically every economic good and service was costing trillions of marks. The American dollar was quoted at 4.2 trillion marks, the American penny at 42 billion marks. How could a European nation that prided itself on its high levels of education and scholarly knowledge suffer such a thorough destruction of its money? Who would inflict on a great nation such evil which had ominous economic, social, and political ramifications not only for Germany but for the whole world? Was it the victors of World War I who, in diabolical revenge, devastated the vanquished country through ruinous financial manipulation and plunder? Every mark was printed by Germans and issued by a central bank that was governed by Germans under a government that was purely German. It was German political parties, such as the Socialists, the Catholic Centre Party, and the Democrats, forming various coalition governments, that were solely responsible for the policies they conducted. Of course, admission of responsibility for any calamity cannot be expected from any political party."

This was just the start of the problem. Germany was already deep in debt but it didn't feel like it could handle the sharp recession all the industrial countries had as they demobilized. To put off this pain and potential instability, they began to spend more and more. Many, many people, soldiers, farmers, workers and businesses needed help.

"Immediately after the war the German government, under the leadership of the Socialist Party, embarked upon heavy expenditures for health, education, and welfare. The demands on the treasury were extremely heavy anyway because of demobilization expenses, the demands of the Armistice, the disorders of the revolution, and the staggering deficits of the nationalized industries, especially the railroads, postal services, telephone, and telegraph. Public administration by the new men raised to power by the revolution, nevertheless, was extravagant, as the resources made available by the creation of new money were apparently unlimited. A number of measures for the nationalization of certain industries (e.g., the coal, electrical, and potash industries) were introduced, but failed to become law. The eight-hour day was enacted, and labor unions were given many legal immunities and privileges. In fact, a system of labor councils was set up which authorized the workers in each enterprise to elect representatives who shared in the management of the company! While government expenditures rose by leaps and bounds, the revenue suffered a gradual decline until, in October 1923, only 0.8 percent of government expenses were covered by tax revenues. For the period from 1914 to 1923 scarcely fifteen percent of the expenses were covered by means of taxes. In the final phase of the inflation the German government experienced a complete atrophy of the fiscal system."

The immediate effects of their actions weren't clear to most and the monetary authorities went to great lengths to tell people that the inflation people saw in their daily lives wasn't really there.



The other thing that reminds one of this time was not just that Germany was up to it's eyeballs in debt but that this debt was largely owed to foreigners who had once considered it a good credit. They continued to lend and only slowly realized their mistake. When they did, the Mark dropped like a stone and the real pain began.



The situation since only a reinforced and confirmed my worst fears. The receding tide exposed the pyramid of lies and false promises behind not just the Federal, but almost every local and state budget. It's a very grim situation, I talked about here. We have been living far beyond our means and have to make serious cuts on a personal and national level. A new confrontation with reality is slowly taking shape, which we saw at the Tea Parties, and was carried forward by the votors in California.

But, But, But, This is the rub. We all know that the government run by people like Barak Obama, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, or for that matter Arlen Specter, Colin Powell or Arnold Schwarzenegger will never allow itself to shrink and can in fact never live within it's means.And, as long as they a have the Fed, they don't have to. We know almost every state can count on a bail out.

Even more scary than all of this is the bold honesty of the looters who now run the Fed and their fellow travelers. through most of it's history, the Fed made the pretense of "protecting" the value of the dollar-- even as it destroyed it. In fact, this is supposed to be it's primary job. How's it doin?

This exposes the real and only reason governments need fiat paper money -- to use inflation to paper over bills they cannot or do not want to pay. Be very afraid, because they can no longer hiding this.

Here's advice from a prominent economist and Bush advisorBut Bernanke has made many similar statements.

"In advocating that the Fed commit itself to generating some inflation, Mankiw, 51, likens such a step to the U.S. decision to abandon the gold standard in 1933, which freed policy makers to fight the Depression.(the FED caused the depression)

Faster inflation might be preferable to increased unemployment, or to further budget stimulus packages that push up the national debt, says Mankiw, who was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under President George W. Bush.

The White House has forecast that the budget deficit will hit $1.84 trillion this fiscal year, or 12.9 percent of gross domestic product. Rogoff doubts that politicians will be willing to reduce that shortfall by raising taxes as much as needed. Instead, he sees them pressing the Fed to accept faster inflation as a way of easing the burden of reducing the deficit.

Easier Debt Repayment

Inflationary increases in wages -- and the higher income taxes they generate -- would make it easier to pay off debt at all levels."

This is the kind of sick morality that's at work here. Here is a major economist who doesn't see any difference between paying off debts normally through savings, work and hard choices like normal people do-- and just printing fake money. We have to understand that the FED is no longer an impartial actor here. It's backing up major banks, companies and most especially itself by conducting a massive theft from any responsible person.

Also, please, please remember the cold cruely of these actions which put the lie to the sham of government concern for the poor. Inflation is a sharply regressive tax on all the basic necessities of life.

A Genius From Harvard

I think most of you on here have given up on The New York Times as a source of objective facts or rational insight. One cannot deny however the window it gives to the minds of people currently in charge.

In the guise of a semi serious proposal, a prominent Harvard economist floated an idea , almost perfectly designed to toilet whatever limited confidence anyone could have in the value of our dollar and cause a panic of epic proportions.

The rub is that many people and companies after seeing the negative effects of their bad investments and often reckless consumer spending have decided to rebuild their balance sheets by saving. They understand that only rational investments which pay off in the future can be a possible way to future wealth. And they understand the extreme personal risk any person takes by spending money they don't have or taking on debts they can't repay.

Lucky for them, geniuses like Bernanke, Obama and their cheerleaders like Krugman and this guy are there to stop them. Already, Bernanke has dropped the Fed funds to almost zero, and engaged in the wholesale printing of money while it and other Federal agencies have purchased garbage bank assets, guaranteed toxic loans used HUD, and FHA, to pump out factory fresh bubble loans. (many of which default right away)

Meanwhile, Obama and the Democratic Congress have implemented a national debt explosion and an ever changing array of promised taxes and regulatory schemes almost sure to choke off market confidence and scare long term investors.

The latest concept is an attempt to force people to spend by proposing a scheme of outright government theft. Please, please, please-- take it seriously. This guy is seriously floating this idea in our so called-- paper of record.

"At one of my recent Harvard seminars, a graduate student proposed a clever scheme to do exactly that. (I will let the student remain anonymous. In case he ever wants to pursue a career as a central banker, having his name associated with this idea probably won’t help.)

Imagine that the Fed were to announce that, a year from today, it would pick a digit from zero to 9 out of a hat. All currency with a serial number ending in that digit would no longer be legal tender. Suddenly, the expected return to holding currency would become negative 10 percent.

That move would free the Fed to cut interest rates below zero. People would be delighted to lend money at negative 3 percent, since losing 3 percent is better than losing 10.

Of course, some people might decide that at those rates, they would rather spend the money — for example, by buying a new car. But because expanding aggregate demand is precisely the goal of the interest rate cut, such an incentive isn’t a flaw — it’s a benefit."

He then of course quickly tries to run away from this explicit theft while endorsing a more subtle one-- inflation.

"If all of this seems too outlandish, there is a more prosaic way of obtaining negative interest rates: through inflation. Suppose that, looking ahead, the Fed commits itself to producing significant inflation. In this case, while nominal interest rates could remain at zero, real interest rates — interest rates measured in purchasing power — could become negative. If people were confident that they could repay their zero-interest loans in devalued dollars, they would have significant incentive to borrow and spend."

He seems to have gotten a lot of flack for this insanity and he defends his editorial here.

"If people are feeling poorer and want to save for the future, why should we stop them? Unless we think their additional saving is irrational, it seems best to try to funnel that saving into investment with the appropriate interest rate. And given the available investment opportunities, that interest rate might well be negative".( even he says there might not be that many good economic opportunities so you should invest in bad ones)

At no point does he appologize or even question the legal right of the government to steal the capital and savings of Americans and use them as rats in weird economic experiments.

Mish, who has a great economics blog has this to say.

"Even more galling than his blatant arrogance, Mankiw has no problems with theft. Because confiscating or expiring 10% of someone's money at will is theft of property, and would (at at least should) be a violation of the 5th amendment and due process of law. How anyone cannot see that is beyond me.

However, let's assume such a law was passed, and upheld by the courts. How would people react? Simple, they would pay off every debt they could as they would get an immediate 10% return on their money to do so! Thus credit would implode.

I repeat my call for Mankiw to resign or be fired. Mankiw is unfit to teach economics anywhere, let alone Harvard."

Was this Obama's economics teacher?