Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Stop Blaming the Fed

Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 15, 2011, midnight EST by jeremiah757 (9)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Here’s an interesting point of agreement between the Tea Party and the Occupy movement – both sides want to end the Fed. The left hates banks and the right hates government intervention, but neither side can present a realistic alternative. Returning to the gold standard is a fantasy. As long as we have a fiat currency, we need a central bank to manage it. England has one, and so do China and Europe.

The Fed’s only job is to manage the money supply, with attention to exchange rates, inflation, and unemployment. That’s difficult enough. History will show that Chairman Bernanke averted a depression through correct application of quantitative easing. Now he is forcing banks to lend, and reducing mortgage rates. This is good monetary policy. The problems have come from fiscal policy, for which Congress is responsible.

The movement’s main concern is that moneyed interests have corrupted our leaders in Washington. That seems like a pretty good argument for keeping the Fed independent, and free from political interference.

10 Comments

10 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by YourSoDumb (42) 13 years ago

We need someone who isn't corrupt running the FED if we are going to keep it around. When idiots have been behind the wheel for so many years, it kind of makes anyone with a brain want to get rid of it though. That is usually just emotions running high and/or just spouting off with what you heard your favorite candidate say. It's simply too hard to get rid of something that big so easily. Auditing the FED and making everything the FED does public sounds better to me. The FED should have to pay all the money back to the taxpayer that has been stolen for under the table business deals.

[-] 1 points by Nulambda (265) 13 years ago

Or put money on the work standard... One dollar is equal to one hour of minimum wage work. That way the overall production value of the workforce determines the value of our currency. Then, investing in education and job training would be an investment in the growth of our economy. This would also allow prices to better reflect the actual work put into producing the good. Maybe...

[-] 1 points by Fex (8) from Los Angeles, CA 13 years ago

Mayhaps a lot of that "moneyed interest" is the Fed my friend.

[-] 1 points by rapidash (16) 13 years ago

This policy is what led to the Weimar inflationary period. The money supply is completely under the Fed's control, and just the other day, they were saying that the 2% inflation rate target is arbitrary and they want to change it to 4%. The reason why we used 2% is because it is a conservative lower bound for growth. GDP growth is definitely low and we want 4% inflation, whats next, 6%? 100%? Hyperinflation under Bernanke!!!!

[-] 1 points by marsdefIAnCe (365) 13 years ago

Can we define depression, please, OP?

If you measure inflation the way they did during the depression it is about 10%. Nominal GDP growth has not printed above inflation since the depression started. It has beat the new, Greenspan CPI, in which the price of food isn't really going up as long as cat food has price stability.

You can learn more at the following website about how the calculations of unemployment and inflation were changed in the 90s:

http://www.shadowstats.com/

[-] 1 points by jeremiah757 (9) 13 years ago

Depression, a deflationary spiral. Falling asset prices lead to unemployment. This is why the Fed has a dual mandate. Money supply must be balanced between inflation and deflation. Another reason you can't just "end the Fed" and expect to have a modern economy.

[-] 1 points by Chromer (124) 13 years ago

That may be true, but I still think they should be audited.

[-] 2 points by KGochanour (4) 13 years ago

checks and balances my friend...