Forum Post: Criticism of the FED from the left?
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 5, 2011, 6:51 p.m. EST by GammaPoint
(400)
from Oakland, CA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I'm interested in learning more about the FED and whether or not it is a central problem for America. But most criticism of the FED comes from right-wing people who think that "free market" capitalism can exist in reality. So I'm curious, are there any credible left-wing people who criticize the FED, and for what reason?
Thanks for helping me learn.
I've never really thought of it as a left or right wing issue as much as an issue of, if your able to understand enough to get how it works then your most likely pissed... The problem is it's a private business thats running the monetary system in our country, and our dollars are no longer represented by gold or silver but rather a dollar stands for debt. In this system the only way to keep it surviving is by creating more and more debt, if we were to ever come out of debt our entire economy collapse. However it will keep inflating until it collapses, so it's a lose lose - theres a good section in zeitgeist that makes it easy to follow, because it really is a complicated system thats hard to understand Here's a good place to start with information about the FED http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dmPchuXIXQ
and interest needs to be paid on all that money the Fed creates. Guess who gets to pay that....
Central banking enables the debt enslavement of the populace, including ever increasing taxation to pay all that interest.
actually the FED prints out more money to cover that interest, but in turn that money comes with more interest which in turn creates more debt, it's a never ending cycle... well.. there is 1 possible end...
Yep. Perpetual debt enslavement. Great deal for the banksters; for the rest of us, not so much.
it really was an ingenious plan... how they ever got this country to go along with it is beyond my comprehension... thanks a lot Wilson...
I thought it was Nixon who removed the gold standard?
it was woodrow wilson who passed the federal reserve act, or which ever act that was that incorporated a central banking system, then he immediately regretted and said he just gave our country away
I can't find a reputtable source. Would you show me yours?
well it's kinda of common knowledge... but a quick search of the internet can confirm it from any source http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/moneymatters/a/fedreserve.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Federal_Reserve_System
I am grateful that a MN representative (Charles Lindbergh, Sr) was opposed. Unfortunately, this whole fiasco still came into being.
Apparently he said he regretted it, on his death bed. They got them to go along with it because the first time they put it through, it had a different name, and people recognized that it was privatizing our money supply. So then they got bankers and polits to say they were against it, so that it would have less opposition after they renamed it the "Federal Reserve". Then they shoved it through at the 11th hour on Christmas Eve when everyone was already home with their families.
also as a result of this you have a financial system based on debt and they make it impossible to ever come out of it.
The credible issue being talked about is AUDIT the Fed. From what I understand, there has never been an audit since it was formed in the early 20th century. Kucinich supports Audit The Fed, it is one of the issues he has come together with Ron Paul on:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/11/federal-reserve-audit-sup_n_214004.html
audit what though? it's their economy and banking system?? Every dollar in ciruclation was created by them along with an interest rate, and they control the value of the dollar by controlling the supply, as well as the laws that regulate, not sure what good an audit would even do?
I believe the hope is that an audit would reveal the pernicious nature of the system, and the people would then demand that it be phased out.
Phasing it out isn't going to create jobs immediately. But leaving it in place to drain our sustenance like a tapeworm will keep destroying jobs.
But thats the thing, they aren't trying to hide what they're doing, they'll brag about it... I wouldn't say it's common knowledge, but people know what they're doing, we just haven't been able to stop it
They will be able to stop it once enough people know the score. Peacefully. We've reached the tipping point. Somewhere between 15 to 20% of the people now know about the paper money issue and how it is responsible for the lost jobs, lost homes, broken families, and THE BANKS ENDING UP WITH ALL THE PROPERTY, not having done shit to earn it. The truth, along with the moral implications of it and the real price we are paying, is spreading out of control now, like a wildfire.
Help push it over. There is hope. We can reclaim our futures and our time of life. All we have to do is wake people up to the con job.
Check out the post Monetary System Basics. I'm a former Democrat, turned Libertarian. The obvious worry with a free market is 1. greed 2. uneducated and apathetic consumers. These are real problems with Libertarianism, but more manageable, I think, than dealing with a corrupt fed gov't that is too big to be held accountable. Centralized control doesn't work, in any situation. Solutions need to come from the bottom up, with very little top-down control. I'd rather let diverse non-profits and charities be the regulators, watchdogs and public service providers.
Hi Tori,
I do think bottom-up control is very attractive for many reasons, although I think the more manageable and realistic variant of this is libertarian socialism, rather than the reliance on a "free market" which I think over time quickly develops into something that is rampant with monopolies and markets that are anything but free (and thus also turns into top-down type of control over time). Maybe something like participatory economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economics) would be relevant here.
Hey GammaPoint, thanks for the info on Participatory economics. Would that be like unions without union bosses? If so, sounds good. Here's my two cents on the free market. Capitalism is ideally regulated my "natural" selection mechanisms, but there is another form of selection that is called the Matthew Effect. It goes something like this: What happens once is more likely to happen again. This is a natural law of all complex systems which tend to segregate over time (become more disparate) even when selections are said to be "random" or "equal." Where the Matthew Effect is operating, unfit companies can become monopolies. I believe a function of the gov't would be to break them up.
Hi Tori,
Yes, I'm not an expert in participatory economics, but in some ways it could be similar to unions without union bosses, although from the Wikipedia page you can see it's more involved than that. I think your Matthew Effect argument is valid and I believe it is the government's responsibility to break up monopolies and redistribute vast inequality that would otherwise build up in the capitalist system. Only by breaking this sort of concentrated power up will market mechanisms work like they should and market competition will be effective.
I'll look into participatory economics further. It's nice that OWS is bringing people together to trade ideas. I especially like communication between what seem to be opposites sides. Re your comment above, agree, except that I would use a different word than "redistribute." I'd rather see monopolies split into two or several daughter companies with different qualities or goals so that they could compete with the parent company. This would create more diversity.
Agreed. One of the best things about OWS is that when people feel like they might actually HAVE a democracy and that their opinions on issues actually might matter, then they take it up to educate themselves, discuss with others, and try to come up with the best possible ideas. In the current corporate-dominated two-party system this is really not necessary, since no one's ideas, right or wrong, will be able to compete with the corporate interests anyway. In that sort of situation, political education and ideas are really just mental masturbation and have no practical use.
Considering a free market economy has never been tried before, i'm not sure how one would assume it would cause monopolies. The only time monopolies have existed in this country is/was through semi-fascistic control of a sector:
1) Railroads: land granted by the Fed Gov't. 2) Steel: land granted by the fed gv't; bought by the fed gov't for war purposes. 3) Communications: how many cable companies do you have to choose from? that's due to gov't control of the lines. 4) other utilities: why are trash, power, and water costs skyrocketing? gov't backed monopolies.
i'm not saying free market will work; i'm saying the argument you have put forth is flawed.
Sure, that's a fair statement.
A perfectly free market requires perfect competition. Perfect competition (as you can see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition) is impossible to obtain, and I believe it's likely hard to even get close to perfect competition. I believe that any imperfections in the competition will be magnified over time, since an advantage to one group at one time will allow it to extract a greater advantage in the future (statistically speaking, of course some groups with advantages will fail to utilize them effectively).
Plus I don't see how a truly free market economy would deal with the environmental problem that is soon to become a huge problem for the planet and mankind.
environment aside, i think the point is removing gov't from wall street and wall street from gov't it needs to go both ways. removing corporate personhood would negate the "greater good" portion of the constitution to assist corporations in making money.
this stops the boom-bust cycle predicted by Hayek, as the gov't is no longer inflating pet sectors (railroads, communications, green initiatives). this stops predatory practices of gov't lending.
I'm going to make an attempt to post an explanation in a separate forum.
The Fed is not a partisan issue. It is an economic issue. What institution enabled Wall Street to take risks without bearing the consequences? What institution enabled the corporate bailouts and the failed stimulus packages to occur at the expense of regular people? What institution makes prices rise? What institution finances government wars that the people wouldn't tolerate being taxed to fund?
Just look at the founding of the Federal Reserve. It was created by international bankers (competitors!) who represented nearly 1/3 of the world's wealth at the time. They sold it to the American public as a way to "break the grip of the money trust." Ha!
If you want to know the whole history, read "The Creature from Jekyl Island" by Griffin.
I have no problem with fiat money. I do have a problem with MONOPOLY CAPITALISM which is largely what America has devolved into. And the people who are at the heart of this are the Wall Street Banksters. These banks comprise the Fed. Their vision for the future is a Plantation America, where they will be at the top and the vast bulk will be wage slaves there to serve them. People deserve better than that and certainly this nation deserves better leadership. I simply don't see a viable future for this nation under the current paradigm.
Here's Dylan Ratigan talking about it on YouTube
http://youtu.be/UDj52mNaUVg
I take issue with your request for an answer from someone who is 'credible and left wing'. First of all, the left-right paradigm is something that is promoted by the 1% in order to divide and control the 99%. If we are all fighting and name-calling about left-wing, tea party, right wing, then we aren't focusing on the inherent problems in the system.
BOTH wings want bigger government, and BOTH wings have failed to say anything about the Fed, which is neither Federal, nor does it have any reserve.
believing that free market capitalism can exist is not so much a judgement about free market or capitalism, its not a theory of anything, its the judgement that this capitalism calling itself free market capitalism is not free market capitalism like they want to think of it. they have a better opinion of the theory of the system then the real effects that they can see. they think the justifications for free market are so good that what is in front of their eyes can impossibly be a free market economy.
guess that is a matter of how left you want them to be, theres always "left" of some right-wing conspiracy nutter. doesnt mean anything.
i guess i miss-understood the original post.... what he said ^^^^
My opinion is that making this about the Fed fails to address more immediate issues. You would not immediately put people back to work, for instance, simply by closing the Fed and going back to the gold standard. It is a technical issue. It would not help get money out of the pockets of the 1%. It would not improve wages. Remember that the sweatshops of the 19th century came before the Fed. I think we should focus more on the immediate problems facing every day families. That is why people are in it, not because this part of the government or that is bad. The EPA would be good, the SEC would be good, if they did anything but they dont and that is the beginning of changing things. If the Fed plus Fannie and Freddie could be made more responsive to the needs of the people, they would be fine institutions too. But the problem is that all of them are in the back pocket of companies like Goldman Sachs. Lets not forget the companies who worked their magic on Washington for so long. That is why this is occupy wall st first.