One day last week, at the Occupy Kansas City site near the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, a dreadlocked and heavily pierced individual, who identified himself as Rocky, brandished a piece of cardboard that accused the Fed of treason. Among Rocky’s complaints was (I think) the obscure moment in rock history when Alice Cooper’s Billion Dollar Babies album was delayed at the printer because of concerns about the way currency was used in the artwork. It was actually the Secret Service that temporarily stopped the presses, but I got his drift.
Rocky wasn't alone. I spoke with another demonstrator at Occupy Kansas City, a retiree, who called the Federal Reserve a "cartel" and spoke of "fiat" currency, which Congressman Ron Paul, the patron saint of the End the Fed movement, defines as "money that can be inflated or increased at the push of a button at the say-so of a powerful person or organization."
Occupy Wall Street is, at its heart, a rejection of the financialization of the U.S. economy. Much of the income inequality in this country can be attributed to the fact that the finance sector became so vast and destructive. Adair Turner, the chairman of the Financial Services Authority in Great Britain, has complained that much of what happens in the world’s financial capitals is "socially useless activity."
But how much is the Fed to blame for this uselessness? Has the Ron Paul wing of the Occupy Wall Street movement misidentified the real villain?
Occupiers who are frustrated by their inability to escape the underclass should be at least open to the idea that they have a few friends at the Federal Reserve. After all, it was a former Federal Reserve chairman, Paul Volcker, who has said the last financial innovation worth a damn was the ATM.
The current Fed chairman, Ben Bernanke, was asked about the Occupy Wall Street movement at a recent congressional hearing. He sounded sympathetic to the cause:
"Like everyone else, I'm dissatisfied with what the economy's doing right now. They blame, with some justification, the problems in the financial sector for getting us into this mess, and they're dissatisfied with the policy response here in Washington. And at some level, I can't blame them."
The Federal Reserve sets U.S. monetary policy with two goals in mind: Promote employment and keep inflation under control. It's a delicate balance. Still, Charles Evans, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, thinks the fight against joblessness needs to be more aggressive. He gave a speech in early September in which he suggested that if inflation numbers were as bad as unemployment numbers, people "would be acting as if their hair was on fire. We should be similarly energized about improving conditions in the labor market."
Tom Hoenig, the recently retired president of the Kansas City Fed, was one of the inflation worrywarts Evans was trying to goad. But Hoenig was not a hopeless case. In his long career at the Fed, he advanced some ideas that the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators might greet with a "hell, yeah!"
Hoenig, for instance, has called for breaking up supersized banks. “Extremely powerful institutions, both financially and politically, undermine the long-term strength of our system and make us look like a financial oligarchy,” he told The New York Times financial columnist Gretchen Morgenson in August.
As Morgenson points out, Hoenig warned about big, interconnected financial companies long before the 2008 financial crisis. In 1999, for instance, he spoke about his worry of "a world dominated by mega financial institutions."
Alas, the domination took place. And when the game of Risk came to an end, taxpayers were asked to pick up the pieces and put them back in a very expensive box.
The Fed's secretiveness and inscrutability make it an easy target. But abolishing it won't rid the world of plutocrats.
Showing 1-50 of 65
The Private Bank known as the Federal Reserve makes money first by charging interest to its customer the United States government. There is currently more debt than there is money in existence. This is bad. Ending the activities of this perpetual and inevitable debt machine would be good.
In theory, responsible use and control of the fiat currency could work. However, the key word being responsible, the power of the Federal Reserves lends itself to creating irresponsibility. This leads to waste and trying to solve problems with liquidity.
Imagine the economy is a bucket of water. If the bucket some how gets a hole in it, one could continue filling it with water, but the water would just keep leaking out. You can only do this for so long until the whole room is flooded and the walls collapse.
Another alternative is to create a patch (some new law, regulation, or financial instrument) to cover the hole. A patch is only a temporary fix, and eventually its effectiveness will break down. And if the bucket is just cheap and of bad quality, then eventually one would end up with less of a bucket and more of an necessarily complicated lump of leaky patches.
The best option, but often most difficult is to just get a better bucket.
If we remove the power to keep running the faucet and make patches, then we would be forced to face the consequences of our broken bucket. Facing the consequences now rather than latter would force us to look at this broken thing and consider the option that maybe this bucket is just shit and we need a better one. If we just hide in our narrow minded view that our bucket is still a high quality product, we are just delaying the day we get a new one and putting ourselves through misery for a longer time.
If we get rid of the fed, we are forced to fix the fundamental structure of our society rather than throw money at it and hope it doesn't collapse. With power comes greed and irresponsibility, at least in our present culture.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eqw-CVEkr4I
People need to understand how the private banking cartel known as the Federal Reserve operates. Most people don't even know the history of money. How could capitalism be to blame when we haven't had capitalism?
Ron Paul Quote-
"Capitalism should not be condemned, since we haven't had capitalism. A system of capitalism presumes sound money, not fiat money manipulated by a central bank. Capitalism cherishes voluntary contracts and interest rates that are determined by savings, not credit creation by a central bank. It's not capitalism when the system is plagued with incomprehensible rules regarding mergers, acquisitions, and stock sales, along with wage controls, price controls, protectionism, corporate subsidies, international management of trade, complex and punishing corporate taxes, privileged government contracts to the military-industrial complex, and a foreign policy controlled by corporate interests and overseas investments. Add to this centralized federal mismanagement of farming, education, medicine, insurance, banking and welfare. This is not capitalism!" -Ron Paul
I love this "occupy" name....it makes these dirty, stinking, has been hippies seem like "rebels". Why don't they all defect to Canada and raise the IQ level in both countries?
The government vs. private bankers ? Lol. The private bankers OWN the government! Do the research, every policy think tank and every piece of legislation is funded and steered by banker and corporate interests. Go to any Washington or London think tank, click "about us" and see the exact same banks and corporations turn up as "sponsors."
I guess even though Ron Paul called all of this 20 years ago (go on YouTube and see for yourself) he's still somehow wrong and the benevolent bankers are still our greatest asset - [sarcasm.] End the Fed, end wasteful government spending, end representatives that lie during election time and then spend their term in office shining Wall Street's white shoes.
The author is either ignorant, or more likely duplicitous. GO to the Federal Reserve's own website and see that Wall Street's biggest banks run the entire scam- it is not "Federal" it has no oversight, and aside from some cheery anecdotes, the above article does not address these very real, legitimate concerns. Anyone who has taken the time to study the role of these bankers over the last 100 years in destroying this nation knows how remiss the Fed's defenders are.
Go read "War is a Racket." Go read "The House of Morgan." These people are out of control.
@savvy dave
You should've kept looking for the answer to where all the inflation is. During a recession an economy contracts and the deflation cancels out the inflation. That's exactly what's been happening in Japan for the last 10 years. Inflation will only rear its head when the economy starts to rebound and people no longer decide its necessary to save for the future. The US (and possibly world for that matter) is destined to do one of two things thanks to the manipulation from the fed. Once the economy has real growth again (non stimulus) people will either start to save and cause deflation via contraction or start to spend on credit and cause inflation. (Either will be highly leveraged due to fractional reserve banking.) At that point the Fed will be playing a game of cat and mouse to keep things in balance. Hold on to your hat!
@ thomas wise - well said, totally agree. the government is the issue, not the Fed. I wish the 'End the Fed' people would wake up and realise this.
@ joe -
"Just think if congress and our government was the bank, we would be making all this interest on our OWN money. There would probably be no such thing as income taxes. All of these government programs would be justified, health care, education would probably all be free."
Please go and do some research and think of the craziness of what you've said and how little sense it makes.
Are you really asserting that if the Fed was fully owned by the government, the government would then pay interest on its own money to itself and this would end the need to pay taxes and make everything free?
C'mon Joe. Think about the ridiculousness of your position.
[As an aside, I actually think 'Reform' the Fed is the correct argument, not 'End' the Fed. The Fed is the most useful tool against recession that the government has. It shouldn't be this hard for me to google and find out what the ownership structure is though and it's damn near impossible... It should be a government entity, even if it is frequently checked and under government scrutiny]
@ rick -
let me start by saying that I conceed the two following points to do with the US Fed and its structure:
1. I believe the fed should be fully owned by the US government, rather than have part ownership by private citizens.
2. I believe the fed should be regularly subject to audit.
I don't think the structure of the US Fed is condusive to the best outcome, however, also note that the solution is not to 'End' it because it's functions within an economy actually do more for reducing inflationary pressures and promoting maximum employment than it does for causing hyper inflation. Hyper inflation only becomes an issue when you have excessive money printing, which is something that really only comes on from excessive government spending. If the government spends above its tax incomes, it has to get money from somewhere. It does this by borrowing, which is instigated by the request of the government, not the autonomy of the Fed.
You've asked me to explain all of contemporary economics in a nut shell for you, which is obviously an extremely broad topic so I won't go through it all, but I will quickly discuss what I perceive to be an error in judgement by you guys in your understanding of the Fed's role and inflation.
There is an awful lot of people who call for the ending of the Fed blaming 'printing of money' for inflation. I notice someone mentioned that the fact that prices are not what they were 50 years ago is entirely due to the federal reserve printing money which somehow increased prices of everything. The thing is, the link between money being printed and inflation is never discussed by 'end the fed' arguers, mainly because they don't understand it. They appear to link it in to corporations wanting money so they print more of it, which increases their profit. What they don't seem do discuss is how this pushes the prices of everything else up.
Inflation, is the increase of prices. It is not, nor has it ever been, the increase of the money supply. You can have inflation for example, completely without involving the supply of money. Pick gas for example. If the OPEC nations decide to raise the price of gas or oil, that inflates the price of gas. The money supply has nothing to do with it in this case.
Or, take a more common example, wages. If all workers in all industries demand a 3% wage increase per year as part of their contract, then that 3% cost increase for employing these workers has to be passed on somewhere. Where does it get passed on? In the price of the final goods they are producing. Consider if you will... (example, not real figures)
-The corn price in 1970 is 25c per can.
-The price of labour that goes into producing 100 cans of corn is $15
-Employees who harvest and can the corn feel like they do a good job because they work hard for their money and so they expect a raise every year of 3%.
Based on this, in 1970, the profit on selling 100 cans of corn (if we assume for the purposes of the example that labour is the only input for producing corn), is $10
-the revenue from selling the corn:
(100 cans x 25c each) - $25.
less the cost for producing the corn:
$15
In 1971, the labour cost is going to have gone up by 3%, so labour will cost $15.45 to produce 100 cans of corn.
In 1972, this will have raised another 3%, so 100 cans of corn will now cost $15.91.
Flash forward to 1980, based on 3% increases in wages per year for staff, 100 cans of corn cost $20.15 to produce, in 1990 100 cans of corn cost $27.09 to produce and in 2000, they cost $36.41.
You'll notice that price inflation in the labour is occurred due to workers getting pay increases and the Fed has not appeared in this example.
What's more, you'll also realise looking at this example, that eventually the price of corn goes up so much, that the sale value of 100 cans is actually less than the labour that was used in producing it.
The only remedy for this, is the owner of the corn factory to put up the prices of their cans of corn, which, is price inflation.
If you get any industries where workers expect wage increases, the price of the final goods they produce will go up. What's more, if you have an industry where workers are able to bid for wage increases and an industry where workers are not able to bid for wage increases, the purchasing power of the workers who work in an industry where they can't get wage increases goes down (ie, a worker who works in an industry that didn't get a pay increase has to pay a higher amount in 1971 for a can of corn than they did in 1970, meaning the same can of corn now took more of their wage than it did before, so they can afford fewer cans of corn on the same wage as they could the previous year).
The result of this is that each industry expects a pay increase of the same 3% 'to match inflation'. Therefore, you get inflation in this case not from anything the Fed has done, but from expectation of workers that they will be paid more every year.
That is what causes inflation, not the Fed.
Think about the above example I've given you, and apply it to government spending. Let's say the US government decides it wants to take over the world. To do this, it needs a big army, lots of weapons and vehicles and it needs to employ diplomats to tell other countries.
Initially, it might find recruiting 1 mil soldiers easy using the market wage rate of $7/hr (again wage rate is an example, not intended to be the 'actual' rate).
What if it thinks it needs 20mil soldiers? The easiest way to do it is to wage soldiers pay rates to make it more attractive than other industries to be a solider because you get paid more. In order to compete, other industries that are non government then also have to increase the wages rate they pay so as to keep employees, so they match the government rate. So effectively, the government increases the price of labour when competing for soldiers to work for it.
Then, what if the government orders 50x more machinery for tanks than it has in the past. Obviously, the government has to get people to build these items. So in order to build them, companies need to hire workers. And to find workers, the companies need to pay higher rates than other industries. So they raise wages. And as a result, the government has again caused inflation.
This is what has gone on for the last 50 years in the USA. The government has overspent significantly, each year spending more and more money than it actually gets in tax dollars from its citizens and this has led to it having to use the Fed to borrow.
As the Fed is mandated as a tool of the government, the Fed can not say 'no we won't give the government money' so it obliges.
Your beef is with the government guys, not the Fed. The Fed doesn't cause inflation, the government and our own greed does.
Doing these things would stabilize the financial system. But the Democrats and Republicans will NEVER do it.
1. Repeal the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act
2. Reinstate the Glass–Steagall Act
3. Repeal the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000
4. Regulate derivatives as “futures"
5. Throw the investment bankers in jail for fraud.
This should be the focus of the "Occupy Wall Street" movement.
Public pension funds (local, state and federal) are required to invest in only AAA rated investments. AAA rate investments are as safe as government securities. They are the lowest risk investment.
The investment banks did the following.
1. They paid the rating agencies (Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s, KPMG, etc) to give their CDOs (Collateralized Debt Obligation) a AAA rating. The CDOs were comprised of (mostly) sub-prime mortgages. The investment bankers KNEW they were junk. Their internal correspondence confirms this.
2. They sold the CDOs to the public and private pension/retirement funds.
3. They took the profit made from the sale of the CDOs and invested it into Hedge funds the bet the CDOs would FAIL.
That is a clear cut case of fraud. They should be in JAIL.
Just think if congress and our government was the bank, we would be making all this interest on our OWN money. There would probably be no such thing as income taxes. All of these government programs would be justified, health care, education would probably all be free.
But instead we give all the banking profits to private banks who just squirrel it away and build large buildings they don't need.
The Money Masters is another gmovie about the Federal Reserve people should watch, also a great history lesson.
Wow when did the pitch become just another worthless corporatocracy supporting "news" outlet?
I love that this article starts by calling the protesters dreadlocked, pierced people with names like Rocky... real fringe freak types. Yet the picture above the paragraph shows average motherly looking women wearing american flag hats and sweatshirts.
Would the top 1%(or any one else) vote to raise taxes to bomb libya, build jails to put 1% of our population in jail (closer to 10% for blacks), or buy a failed car company? Of course not. Government debt and printing money is immoral and the fed makes it possible.
Wow, when did David Martin turn into a responsible, climb the corporate ladder type? This article is uninformed and useless. And I agree with Matt, characterizing the movement by the way someone looks is very irresponsible journalism.
After reading all the post in this thread, I'm overwhelmed with the amount of people who seem to throw around the names of our current and former presidents and seem to not understand or refuse to accept the basic notion that ALL of our elected officials (with very few exceptions) have done a terrible job at just about everything except bi-partisan bickering (which accomplishes nothing) and digging a deeper hole for everyday people to try and work our way out of. Republicans, Democrats, The Fed are all responsible. The only thing that gives me hope nowadays, is that real people are taking a stand! Shame on you David Martin for using "dreadlocks and piercings" in this article when in fact, it has nothing to do with the subject of your lame story whatsoever...
Cool conclusion guys, "the fed is bad, but getting rid of it won't solve anything." That was worth writing an entire editorial about? Sometimes it's obvious that these editorials are just written to talk shit, calling you out.
The protesters should be protesting the Federal Reserve, the cause of our economic problems. To understand the FED watch "The Creature From Jekyll Island". It talks about the FED, how it came into being, and how it operates. It is very enlightening. You can find it at:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=65…
The bottom line is we have the know how, technology, resources for everyone to live in paradise on this planet. People just need to over come the greed and corruption that exist on this planet. Peace & Love.
“Libertarians like Ron Paul are on our side on civil liberties. They’re on our side against the military-industrial complex. They’re on our side against Wall Street. They’re on our side for investor rights. That’s a foundational convergence.It’s not just itty-bitty stuff" - Ralph Nader
For all of you don't fully understand... This movement represents a variety of demands with a common statement about government corruption and excessive influence of big business and the wealthiest 1% of Americans on US law and policy.
I find it quite comical that the people against the protesting can seem to name call and bash, being the bully. And most people protesting take the time to inform and are willing to have a intelligent adult conversation.
What is ironic is that we learn as children in grade school, that the person who has something to hide, or nothing to stand for is the one who lashes out. The one who doesn't truly understand, and is actually full of fear, is the one who will bully.
Food for thought. We are all people, violence, and hatred are not needed. We should all be working together. And that's just one more point of the movement you all are missing.
@ Lunwin
"To take away the reserve would empower the Plutocrats, the opposite of what is suggested. It would put the power of money back in the private sector, which is pretty much where it is right now,"
Pretty convoluted so far. I am not sure what the last sentence means. Taking away the reserve simply means repealing the Act and ending the relationship between the government and the Fed. Do you think for a minute the endless spending on wars fueled by the fed empowers anyone else than the so called "Plutocrats" you despise?
"... no matter who has been in the W.H. because the Republicans have always been for no government, except when interfereing in the private lives of others. The Democrats give good rhetoric on things that the government institution will provide, but they never stick to it."
I agree that the Republicans tend to support invasions into peoples lives, but what about Democrats. The most invasive thing you can possibly do is tell someone you know how they should live or what they should have or what their wage should be, etc. These are all personal decisions that the government has no place in.
For instance, I was talking to a guy I work with- his daughter in Boulder gave away a lease on a condo to a single lady from San Francisco recently. The Boulderites were sharing this 2 br. condo for a pretty high price to me (I am from KS). They could not hold on to it, but to the lady from San Fran, this was a freaking steal! I still think it is too high, but who am I to judge?
" The problem with our government isn't that it is government, it is that government has been bought out and controlled by the plutocrats."
I am not sure how ending our relationship with the Fed would impact this, so I guess it also cannot be an argument against ending the fed.
The solution to this problem, however, cannot be the government becoming more benevolent. History in the long term, and in the short term would dismiss that theory. The only solution to this problem of a government that has been "bought out and controlled by the plutocrats" is to render that government so insignificant that it is absolutely meaningless in our everyday lives- at the airport, in our emails, in our streets.
libertystudy.blogspot.com
I have decided that the Pitch is the news paper for the college age, inexperienced-with-the-world Libertarians. This article was poorly written. So, not much to point out, but that people do need to read history and understand why the federal reserve was put into place in 1913. Now those who are there as Ron Paul advocates against the fed reserve have no reason being there at the Occupy Wall Street protests. To take away the reserve would empower the Plutocrats, the opposite of what is suggested. It would put the power of money back in the private sector, which is pretty much where it is right now, no matter who has been in the W.H. because the Republicans have always been for no government, except when interfereing in the private lives of others. The Democrats give good rhetoric on things that the government institution will provide, but they never stick to it. The problem with our government isn't that it is government, it is that government has been bought out and controlled by the plutocrats. Taking over Wall Street is about showing them a fist and saying that we no longer want unfair taxes, we want the wealth to be spread around. We want a functioning government. We want a government for the people, all people (including the working class) and not limited to the bourgeois. That is what this movement is about.
I agree, it's the protesters in NYC and DC who really have their act together and are the true intelligent leaders of this revolution; they have a clear defined reason for protest...very inspiring are the base of the Democratic Party in NYC
You made the same mistake with this article that the mainstream media makes all the time. Because of a few signs that are along with MANY others, you insinuated that we all have all of the same opinions. That is part of the beauty of this movement - we DO NOT all have the same opinion or beliefs. We are trying to coexist and listen to each other and then come up with viable solutions. Instead of making fun of for the sake of sensationalism you should try to take a cue and find out what we are really about. It is SO much more than those End the Fed signs or what any one group says.
Enlighten us Dr. Professer...tell us why the Fed is here in the first place...
I love how you read through this and none of these people actually understand why the Fed is there in first place, or, rather, try and understand why 'conservatives' think there is a need for it. As far as they are concerned the only reason it exists it to gauge people of their money and for private companies to make more money. I must admit, I don't understand why these people take such a hard line on one side without examining the other. Surely if you felt so passionate about something you would try and understand both points of view? The fact is libertarianism has several flaws in its analysis of modern economics which is why economists look at it as some sort of joke.
Im just impressed that the author was familiar with Alice Cooper's Billion Dollar Babies album!!
Great article - thank God someone actually points out how stupid this end the Fed argument is. The thing is, most people who propagate for end the Fed don't actually understand what it does, they just know it has something to do with money and inflation. Don't end the Fed you clowns, end goverment wastage that put the country into debt to a point that it can't pay the money back!
How silly is the idiot who wrote this article. The people have awakened to the REAL ENEMY...THE FEDERAL RESERVE. WE THE PEOPLE WILL HAVE OUR VICTORY!! LIBERTY OR DEATH!!!!!!!!!!
1) If a financial institution is too big to fail, it is too big to exist.
2) Put a cap on credit card interest rates to end usury. When credit card companies charge 25- or 30-percent interest rates they are involved in extortion and loan-sharking.
3) The Federal Reserve needs to provide small businesses in America with the same low-interest loans it gave to foreign banks.
4) Stop Wall Street oil speculators from artificially increasing gasoline and heating oil prices.
5) Demand that Wall Street invest in the job-creating productive economy, instead of gambling on worthless derivatives. The "heads, bankers win; tails, everyone else loses" financial system must end.
6) Establish a Wall Street speculation fee on credit default swaps, derivatives, stock options and futures.
Thomas Jefferson once said:
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies . . . If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] . . . will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered . . . The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." -- Thomas Jefferson -- The Debate Over The Recharter Of The Bank Bill, (1809)
Has Thomas Jefferson's prophecy come to pass? Under the contrived bankruptcy we have lost the right to challenge the constitutionally of the statutes.
We have lost our law . . .
We can own nothing . . .
We have become slaves of the corporation on the land we once owned . . .
And . . . our children are waking up homeless on the continent their forefathers conquered.
The Federal Reserve Bank is a privately held for profit corporation. It is not an agency or body of the US Government. No where in the US Constitution does it say we are to have a federal reserve central bank. The federal Reserve Act of 1913 was passed by Fascist/Communist bankers. Look up "The Creature from Jekyll Island". Also learn about Fiat currency and "the inflation tax". The fed wont sound so good once you learn about it on you own. This article is a cheerleader article kissing the feds ass.
The Federal Reserve is the problem. Too much fake money. Inflation will destroy our Nation. END THE FED!! RON PAUL REVOLUTION 2012!
So glad to see people aren't falling for this bs! The misguided, ignorant hippie college kids at OWS are the biggest readers of the pitch and I'm sure they're praising this article. Let them praise afterwards with their total debt forgiveness, free college and $20 min. wage in a ravaged post industrial america.
That was a really bad 'article'. . . Making fun of people who propose a course of action you don't agree with is what I usually expect to see on Fox News. . . I see this as just a divisive spin piece that aims to keep The Left and The Right from uniting at a grass roots level. I think there is plenty of energy building up in our nation and a peoples movement is inevitable, not just a political movement of one party or the other. As Ron Paul says, "an idea who's time has come can not be stopped by any Government or any Army. . ."
David~I am NOT impressed with your "journalistic" views. Your obviously not well versed in the history of the FED. Everyone has their own agenda here but bashing someone else's is not productive. Once again...waste of my time, I thought the Pitch was different. Obviously NOT.
The author is correct, "abolishing it[the Fed] won't rid the world of plutocrats." But he misses the point: Abolishing the Fed will take control of our money from the plutocrats.
This is what we need.
Give the author a break, he's just re-hashing what the government has drilled into his head all these years.
At least listen to this http://youtu.be/4hAyVcgc06I before spouting off about how "predictable" the anti-Fed people are and showing your ignorance of economic thought.
I am just curious...What is it about ending the Fed that folks don't like? I understand progressives are told not to play with end the Fed'ers, but are there some good arguments against the position that I don't know about?
Just to be clear- the Fed is a bank, just as all the other "evil" banks are banks. They put on a fake "uniform" of the gothic design of the buildings (remember, it was passed in 1913), the federal seals, etc. to make it appear to be part of the government. Don't believe me, go protest there...you will be kicked off PRIVATE property!
libertystudy.blogspot.com
Perhaps someone should do their homework and read the "Creature from Jekyll Island". Ever since they have come into existence it has been a catastrophe, not to mention it's private. It's very own purpose is to create inflation and tax our asses. Stabilize is a generic term for psychotropics....just buy gold and sit tight...
One good rain storm or a hard freeze and these Occupiers will disappear.
Dave, prices have been kept artificially low with different government activities as well as monetary policies; i.e. the 2010 oil spike being nipped in the bud with the Libyan Offensive and Operation Twist (by the Fed.)
An inflationary recession/depression doesn't happen immediately after quantitative easing (QE,) as these instances set the stage for a sharp and sudden spike in prices that exists as a dark cloud hanging over the economy for years. Moreover, our dollar's value is what is being decimated by the Fed. It’s worth .4¢ in comparison to its value before the Fed was signed into existence in 1913 (with inflation accounted for.) That’s the major deception and that’s why people are protesting. I respect you for putting your time into some research and your original thoughts were spot on – inflation is coming! However, I must disagree with your current stance on inflation; it’s reactive and doesn’t consider the long term effects of QE1, QE2, and QE3.
END THE FED
Even the ultra left liberals at the protest know the federal reserve is ran by goldman sachs, and they use the fed to print out money and hand it out to all their friends. This isn't a secret, and that kind of activity is EXACTLY what people are against. I was at the protest sunday. I think it is a VERY good thing that both liberals and libertarians are uniting against the corporate control of our government. Once we get the corporatist out, we might be able to have a real discussion on the role of the federal reserve as well as the rest of the federal government.
Please don't tell me this is intended to be "Journalism". Do you know nothing of history?
A lot of great responses already but just to pile on...the article (not to mention the attention-grabbing headline) puts the author's ignorance on display. Our system is flawed at a fundamental level. And all the measures and counter-measures and taxes and interests and so on and so forth just delays the inevitable, top-down collapse. Growing up, the very idea that new money was printed and introduced into circulation mystified me. Now I know why.
like
dislike
