Sound and Fury

Well, Obama is president now.

The good news is he will likely go down in history as one of the worst presidents ever.

The bad news is he will go down in history as one of the worst president ever because he's going to utterly destroy the American economy, and maybe America itself.

What happens after Obama creates all the entitlement programs he's promising and then our foreign guarantors stop loaning to us? I'll tell you what: the sort of revolution that would make the French cringe. It won't be the Right that will crucify him in the end. It will be the left, because they actually expect him to make good on the things he said he'd give them. Even those things that they had under the old system will disappear, as the combination of a rapidly devaluing currency and rapidly escalating unemployment prompted by emergency tax-increases conspires to tear our economy apart from every angle. Federal, State, and Local entitlement offices will have to close because they can't pay their employees and can't pay out their entitlements.

That will not be a good day.

As long as it takes us one step closer to the Amero, he will feel accomplished.

I don't believe in the Amero.

Like, I don't think it will ever happen. There's just not a good reason for anyone to want that who doesn't live in an academic fishbowl.

And, thankfully, people who live in academic fishbowls aren't the ones who make American foreign policy.

That guy down the street working at the gas station plus a million dollars and a catchy name... That's the guy who makes foreign policy.

B-Ran wrote:I don't believe in the Amero.

Like, I don't think it will ever happen. There's just not a good reason for anyone to want that who doesn't live in an academic fishbowl.

And, thankfully, people who live in academic fishbowls aren't the ones who make American foreign policy.

That guy down the street working at the gas station plus a million dollars and a catchy name... That's the guy who makes foreign policy.

Certain people can gain huge amounts of power by controlling the money supply. The Fed was created as a grasp for power. There are people who have openly promoted a one world government and a one world currency. The CFR has pushed toward that direction consistently for years.

The more I learn about the Fed, the more I don't believe it was created as a power grab.

It was, instead, an overly idealistic wonky policy initiative that sounded like it should work.

History has shown that these are the most dangerous sorts of interventions. As a wise man once said, "You cannot reason a person out of a position that they weren't reasoned into in the first place."

When I'm done with it, I'll pass around The Forgotten Man. It's about the Depression and the events leading up to it. In my estimation, it's honest, balanced, and extremely relevant. It's also the reason I think the people who decided the Fed was a good idea were both honest and honestly wrong.

Point-in-fact: I learned that there were actually fewer bank failures in 1929 than there were in 1928, 1927, or 1925. I also learned that the initial Federal Reserve contraction of the money supply consisted of selling bonds to counteract the inflow of gold leaving Europe, to the tune of nearly a half billion dollars. Why? To counter inflation, of course. They accomplished this by selling bonds under the direction of the Hoover administration.

I think a pretty persistent theme running through the economic intervention during the onset of the Great Depression was hopeful ambition coupled with a distinct misunderstanding of the way that the market works. In any case, it makes more sense to me that those who tried to "save the country" from "imminent collapse" precipitated the collapse not through malice but through ignorance.

Why do I get the feeling I've opened up a can of worms here?

B-Ran wrote:The more I learn about the Fed, the more I don't believe it was created as a power grab.

It was, instead, an overly idealistic wonky policy initiative that sounded like it should work.

Have you read about the forming of the Federal Reserve? Have you read about the planning and propaganda that went into creating a Federal Reserve? I have no doubt that it was done as a power grab, at least by some involved. If it is relevant enough to discuss, we can start another thread to talk about it.

B-Ran wrote:History has shown that these are the most dangerous sorts of interventions. As a wise man once said, "You cannot reason a person out of a position that they weren't reasoned into in the first place."

When I'm done with it, I'll pass around The Forgotten Man. It's about the Depression and the events leading up to it. In my estimation, it's honest, balanced, and extremely relevant. It's also the reason I think the people who decided the Fed was a good idea were both honest and honestly wrong.

Point-in-fact: I learned that there were actually fewer bank failures in 1929 than there were in 1928, 1927, or 1925. I also learned that the initial Federal Reserve contraction of the money supply consisted of selling bonds to counteract the inflow of gold leaving Europe, to the tune of nearly a half billion dollars. Why? To counter inflation, of course. They accomplished this by selling bonds under the direction of the Hoover administration.

I think a pretty persistent theme running through the economic intervention during the onset of the Great Depression was hopeful ambition coupled with a distinct misunderstanding of the way that the market works. In any case, it makes more sense to me that those who tried to "save the country" from "imminent collapse" precipitated the collapse not through malice but through ignorance.

Why do I get the feeling I've opened up a can of worms here?

I am sure that there were some people who believed in the policies that were being pushed. I am also sure that there were people who would receive benefit from the policies and were pushing for them for selfish reasons. Regardless, centrally managing the money supply doesn't work. It didn't work then, and it obviously doesn't work now. Regardless of the motive, it is a stupid idea.

I have read enough about the formation of the Federal Reserve to be skeptical of the view that it was a vast conspiracy meant to undermine the American way of life rather than a poorly thought-out compromise that tried to solve unsolvable problems through government intervention.

That idea does tie into my point: I don't believe you have to be morally suspect to create harmful legislation. All you have to be is wrong, and that's enough.

B-Ran wrote: I don't believe you have to be morally suspect to create harmful legislation. All you have to be is wrong, and that's enough.

There's nothing to disagree with in that statement.
In looking toward why people would be wrong in the first place usually the story comes out. The people behind the Federal Reserve were undoubtedly economically savvy individuals, evidenced by their position in the banking industry. It is impossible that they didn't think about the power that was available upon gaining control of the money supply. The lawmakers and representatives may have been oblivious to this, but the people behind it would not have wasted their time on something like this that would not directly benefit them above the common person.
The Federal Reserve was created by morally suspect people, but still possibly could have been put into effect by simply ignorant or misinformed people.
The two sides (morally suspect vs. plain wrong) are both destructive and are not ever too far separated. Ignorant politicians are pawns for the greedy.

Do you really think that there would suddenly be a massively powerful central bank constructed and designed secretly that would not be a power-grab? Let's just be real. Obviously some of the people involved had an agenda. It was a strategically implemented system. Sure, there were some who bought into the idea, but those who designing this transfer of power secretly sure knew they had something to gain by it.

I'm sorry, but I need more evidence than "it was a secret meeting, and anyone can see that secret meetings indicate massive world-altering conspiracies" before I'm convinced.

Is there any evidence that isn't just conjecture that I should know about? I can come up with all sorts of compelling reasons for things that happen, but just because they sound compelling doesn't make them true.

B-Ran wrote:I'm sorry, but I need more evidence than "it was a secret meeting, and anyone can see that secret meetings indicate massive world-altering conspiracies" before I'm convinced.

Is there any evidence that isn't just conjecture that I should know about? I can come up with all sorts of compelling reasons for things that happen, but just because they sound compelling doesn't make them true.

Assuming that it was done out of benevolence is also an assumption. Why do you assume that the people who founded the Fed were looking out for the best of the country? It is true that just because they met secretly, conspired, and gained huge amounts of power from the ordeal doesn't prove that it was intended simply as a grab for power. However, Morgan and Rockefeller were not new to the idea of using government as a weapon to further their own wealth. The Standard Oil case is just one of many examples of the government being used strategically to further business interests. Needless to say, realizing that the Morgans or the Rockefellers had a history of looking out for their own interests through the pursuit of government intervention.

To assume that the most astute businessmen of the time were simply looking out for the country, without realizing the power they will gain if the fed was created, is especially silly considering their history. However, I agree that the most important thing is that the Fed is extremely harmful.