Quantcast

How to End the Fed, and How Not To

Tinka123 2012/09/10 15:53:07

How to End the Fed, and How Not To


Mises Daily:
Monday, September 10, 2012
by

It would be very easy to end the Federal Reserve System. Congress would write the following bill. The president would sign it.



  1. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and all subsequent amendments to that act are hereby revoked.



  2. The gold that belongs to the United States government, and which is
    kept on deposit with the Federal Reserve System, is hereby transferred
    to account of the United States Treasury.


If the Federal Reserve System has made any secret agreements with
other central banks regarding the ownership of that gold, those
arrangements would become legally null and void. The Fed would own no
gold of its own to deliver. Ownership would revert to the United States
government.


If other central banks wanted to sue the Federal Reserve System, an
exclusively private entity acting on its own authority alone, to recover
any gold the Fed had promised to deliver, they would have the right to
do so. If they really thought the Fed could deliver on those agreements
merely because a court ordered it to, they could hire lawyers and sue.


Andrew Jackson versus Central Banking


There is a legal precedent for all this. In 1832, Henry Clay and his
allies in Congress decided to make a political issue of the Second Bank
of the United States, the Federal Reserve System of that era. It was a
presidential election year. Clay proposed the rechartering of the bank
four years early. The bill passed Congress. The Wikipedia account of
what happened next is accurate. A confrontation took place between
Nicholas Biddle, the most arrogant central banker in history, and
President Jackson. How arrogant? He believed he could crush Andrew
Jackson, and said so in private letters.



Jackson mobilized his political base by vetoing the re-charter bill
and — the veto sustained — easily won reelection on his anti-Bank
platform. Jackson proceeded to destroy the Bank as a financial and
political force by removing its federal deposits, and in 1833, federal
revenue was diverted into selected private banks by executive order,
ending the regulatory role of the Second Bank of the United States.


In hopes of extorting a rescue of the Bank, Biddle induced a
short-lived financial crisis that was initially blamed on Jackson's
executive action. By 1834, a general backlash against Biddle's tactics
developed, ending the panic and all recharter efforts were abandoned.


In February 1836, the Bank became a private corporation under
Pennsylvania commonwealth law. It suspended payment in 1839 and was
liquidated in 1841.



Jackson did not have to do anything else besides pull its accounts.
The bank could not compete. It was a legal appendage of the US
government, although privately owned. It went belly up.


So would the Federal Reserve System. Its profits would henceforth be
taxed by federal and state governments. Its authority to regulate
commercial banks would end. It would no longer establish reserve
requirements. Excess reserves owned by the commercial banks that are
held on deposit at the Federal Reserve would no longer be backed by the
US government in any way. They would probably be pulled out overnight —
all $1.5 trillion worth. This would be a bank run like no other in
banking history.


The Federal Reserve and its allies — virtually the entire
intellectual class — use this fear to maintain its position as the
quasi-public bureaucracy in charge of America's money. It lured the
nation into the lobster trap of debt — debt undergirded by Federal
Reserve fiat money and congressional deficits — and the country cannot
see a way to get out on a pain-free basis. There is no pain-free escape,
as we will find over the next two decades: hyperinflation or the Great
Deflationary Default or both.


The government's debt and the monetary inflation cannot go on
indefinitely. Either the dollar dies or else the debt is repudiated.
Maybe both.


Goodbye, Fed


What would replace the Federal Reserve System? Nothing. Without any
federal government connection, there would be no central bank.


What would be the new currency of the United States? Not Federal
Reserve Notes, I suspect. Something else. But what? Whatever the free
market creates.


Who would bail out Congress when it runs huge deficits? Not the
Federal Reserve System. Then who? Maybe nobody. Preferably nobody. What
would be there with QE3? Not the Federal Reserve System. Then what?
Preferably nothing.


There is an old political slogan: "You can't beat something with
nothing." But the free market's system of supply and demand, profit and
loss, is not nothing. Replacing crony banking and the legal authority to
print counterfeit money is positive. It is like replacing cancerous
cells with normal cells. It is a vast improvement.


Problem: removing cancerous cells surgically with no anesthetic is
painful. People put off the operation as long as they can. The cancer
spreads.


Proposed Reforms by Economists


The great error of every scheme to reform the Fed, or regulate the
Fed, or even replace the Fed, is this: it establishes a professionally
designed system of money management that relies on a committee of
government-paid economists. These schemes have this in common: they
never rely exclusively on the free market to determine what money is.
They always place a committee in charge. The committee is supposed to be
staffed by economists. In short, the reformers all invoke central
planning of some kind.


The starting point of any economically plausible system to end the
Fed should be a commitment to avoid all forms of central economic
planning, for all of the reasons that Ludwig von Mises set forth in his
classic 1920 essay Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth.


Here is the problem in both theory and practice: academic
central-bank reformers believe in central economic planning. They do not
trust the free market in the area of money. They all think that a
committee of government-salaried experts has greater wisdom than the
free market.


The central benefit of my proposed reform is that it does not rely on
any committee. It does not rely on coercion by the government. It
relies exclusively on the free market. This is why Keynesians will
reject it, Friedmanite monetarists will reject it, supply-siders will
reject it, Greenbackers will reject it. None of them believes Mises's
1920 essay.


If I had the motivation, the time, and the curiosity, I would write a
book on various proposed reforms of the Federal Reserve System. But why
bother? None of the proposed reforms will ever gain wide acceptance.
Academic economists do not agree on much of anything, other than the
wisdom of central banking. They agree with Marx, who defended the idea
of a central bank in his famous ten steps to communism.


Besides, Congress will not enact any carefully designed reform. If it
enacts anything, it will be some last-minute scheme proposed by a joint
congressional committee that is advised by the secretary of the
treasury (Goldman Sachs) and the chairman of the Fed's Board of
Governors in the middle of a financial catastrophe. In other words, it
will be a replay of October 2008.


"Trust the Federal Government!"


In order to illustrate my point — the economists' credulous faith in
committee-managed money — I am going to dissect a plan of monetary
reform offered by an obscure academic economist. Why bother? Because his
plan goes back to a plan proposed by Henry Simons, who taught Milton
Friedman. It also goes back to Irving Fisher, the inventor of the
statistical-index number.


As we shall see, the author calls for pure fiat money, issued by the
government. His proposal features 100 percent reserve banking, but it
explicitly denies any need for a gold standard. The money supply would
be controlled by the government. In short, we can trust the government
to manage the money supply. Here is what Henry Simons proposed in 1934:



100 per cent reserves, simply could not fail, so far as depositors
were concerned, and could not create or destroy effective money. These
institutions would accept deposits just as warehouses accept goods.
Their income would be derived exclusively from service charges — perhaps
merely from moderate charges for the transfer of funds by check or
draft.… These banking proposals define means for eliminating the
perverse elasticity of credit which obtains under a system of private,
commercial banking and for restoring to the central government complete
control over the quantity of effective money and its value.



This is cited in a refutation of Simons written by Professor Huerta
de Soto, an Austrian School economist and legal theorist. It appears on
page 732 of his detailed book, Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles
([1998] 2012). The key phrase is this: "restoring to the central
government complete control over the quantity of effective money and its
value." There is nothing free market about this proposal. It is statist
to the core.


Simon Says


Henry Simon's disciple is Professor Herman Daly. He is retired. He
has for a generation been a major promoter of zero-growth economics
(ZGE). He has challenged the central confession of faith of virtually
all economic policy making. A list of his books tells the story: Toward a Steady-State Economy (1973); Steady-State Economics (1977; 1991); Valuing the Earth (1993); Beyond Growth (1996); Ecological Economics and the Ecology of Economics (1999); and Ecological Economics and Sustainable Development
(2007). The title of the last book is intriguing. How you can have
sustainable development in a zero-growth economy is surely a puzzle.
But, honestly, it is a puzzle that I do not choose to solve. I think
sustainable development implies economic growth. If it doesn't, I'll
pass. He is a self-proclaimed green economist — green as in ecology, not as in "cash on the barrelhead." (Most economists are green in the latter sense.)


In an essay on banking reform, he proposes the other kind of green economy: cash on the barrelhead. He asks,



If our present banking system, in addition to fraudulent and corrupt,
also seems "screwy" to you, it should. Why should money, a public
utility (serving the public as medium of exchange, store of value, and
unit of account), be largely the by-product of private lending and
borrowing? Is that really an improvement over being a by-product of
private gold mining, as it was under the gold standard?



You can see where this is headed: (1) money as a "public utility"
(government); (2) gold as bad, because it is private. He is a Chicago
School economist of the old school: a fiat-money man. He wants green,
not gold. He wants paper, not metal. He wants government, not private
ownership. He wants badges and guns, not contracts. He sounds like a
Greenbacker. "Why should the public pay interest to the private banking
sector to provide a medium of exchange that the government can provide
at little or no cost?"



Is there not a better away? Yes, there is. We need not go back to the
gold standard. Keep fiat money, but move from fractional reserve
banking to a system of 100% reserve requirements. The change need not be
abrupt; we could gradually raise the reserve requirement to 100%.
Already the Fed has the authority to change reserve requirements but
seldom uses it. This would put control of the money supply and
seigniorage entirely with the government rather than largely with
private banks. Banks would no longer be able to live the alchemist's
dream by creating money out of nothing and lending it at interest. All
quasi-bank financial institutions should be brought under this rule,
regulated as commercial banks subject to 100% reserve requirements.



I am also for 100 percent reserves, as a matter of the law against
fraud. Professor De Soto explains this in 800 pages. But I am not in
favor of the US Congress's being in charge of the money supply. Yet he
wants a committee of expert economists and statisticians to determine
the money supply.



To make up for the decline and eventual elimination of bank- created,
interest-bearing money, the government can pay some of its expenses by
issuing more non interest-bearing fiat money. However, it can only do
this up to a strict limit imposed by inflation. If the government issues
more money than the public voluntarily wants to hold, the public will
trade it for goods, driving the price level up. As soon as the price
index begins to rise the government must print less. Thus a policy of
maintaining a constant price index would govern the internal value of
the dollar. The external value of the dollar could be left to freely
fluctuating exchange rates.



He is a committee man. They are all committee men. They all exercise faith in committees of economists.


Who, exactly, will make sure that the US Congress will not inflate?
Who will enforce the rule that the money supply — undefined — will raise
prices back to zero-price increases?


He never mentions this. Fed reformers never do. "Trust Congress,"
they imply. Old-time-religion Greenbackers actually do say this. The
PhD-holding reformers never do.


Then he invokes John Maynard Keynes:



Alternatively, if we instituted John M. Keynes' international
clearing union, the external value of the dollar, along with that of all
other currencies, could be set relative to the bancor, a common
denominator accounting unit used by the payments union. The bancor would
serve as an international reserve currency for settling trade
imbalances a kind of gold substitute.



So, he went from the gold standard (bad) to a committee appointed by
Congress (good). Now he moves to a New World Order committee that is
totally separated from Congress (best). He is not a 100 percent pure
Greenbacker after all. He is a Keynesian-Chicagoan-internationalist,
zero-growth, ecological Greenbacker. He is unique. Fortunately.


Then he comes clean. He admits where this idea came from.



In the 1920s the leading academic economists, Frank Knight of Chicago
and Irving Fisher of Yale, along with others including underground
economist and Nobel Laureate in Chemistry, Frederick Soddy, strongly
advocated a policy of 100% reserves for commercial banks.



There it is: an appeal to Frederick Soddy, one of the patron saints
of Greenbackism and its cousin, technocracy. Soddy was a monetary crank.
He is still cited by Greenbackers. I have never before seen a
PhD-holding economist have the courage or the honesty to cite him.


Also, there is Irving Fisher, who invented the index number — the
tool that Daly's committee would use to plan the economy through
planning the monetary system. He is the man Milton Friedman called
America's greatest economist. He was challenged by Ludwig von Mises in
Mises's Theory of Money and Credit
(1912). He believed in the same fiat-money system that Daly proposes.
He lost his fortune and his sister-in-law's fortune in the Great
Depression. He was the author of this insight, published on October 17,
1929:



Stock prices have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau.
I do not feel there will be soon if ever a 50 or 60 point break from
present levels, such as [bears] have predicted. I expect to see the
stock market a good deal higher within a few months.



A week later, the crash began.


If he was the greatest economist in American history, why was he also
the most bonehead forecaster in American financial history? I offer
this suggestion: his statistical methodology misled him.


Daly concludes:



To dismiss such sound policies as extreme in the face of the
repeatedly demonstrated failure and fraud of our current financial
system is quite absurd. The idea is not to nationalize banks, but to
nationalize money, which is a natural public utility in the first place.
The fact that this idea is hardly discussed today, in spite of its
distinguished intellectual ancestry and common sense, is testimony to
the power of vested interests over good ideas. It is also testimony to
the veto power that our growth fetish exercises over the thinking of
economists today.



[product:0]

I dismiss all of this as fiat-money crackpottery. It is central
planning by monetary committee. Some version of this doctrine is held by
virtually all mainstream economists. Professor Daly is simply the most
open about the doctrine of money by bureaucratic government committee.


Conclusion


The economics guild today is burdened by a century of erroneous
monetary theory. Central planning is the universal doctrine still:
central planning of money. The quest for power through politics has been
the dream of all would-be philosopher kings from the days of Plato. It
is the dream that politicians will listen to experts at all times,
especially times of crisis.


This dream is inherently crackpot. Why would anyone with any
understanding of politics take it seriously? But economists do take it
seriously — all except the Austrians.

Comment on this article.


Gary North is the author of Mises on Money and Honest Money: The Biblical Blueprint for Money and Banking.
He is also the author of a free 20-volume series, An Economic Commentary on the Bible

Copyright © 2012 by the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Permission to
reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided full credit is
given.


Read More: http://mises.org/daily/6175/How-to-End-the-Fed-and...

You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

  • DeeB 2012/09/10 16:17:59
    DeeB
    +7
    According to the Fed itself, they have ZERO gold. So they say. End the FED, and the IRS. Get those gangsters out of our country.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • elptrek P.H.A.E.T.'s wizard 2012/09/11 06:34:05
  • tlee 2012/09/11 03:13:59
    tlee
    +2
    excellent,thanks.
  • DDogbreath 2012/09/11 02:17:59
    DDogbreath
    +2
    Great post! Too bad "others" don't get it...

    heads up their asses
  • Tinka123 DDogbreath 2012/09/11 02:20:35
    Tinka123
    +2
    I concur. Though I wish our problems were limited only to those stuck in the false right/left paradigm.
  • DDogbreath Tinka123 2012/09/11 02:25:12
    DDogbreath
    +2
    Here is an interesting read about the FED

    http://www.apfn.net/doc-100_b...
  • Tinka123 DDogbreath 2012/09/11 02:26:36
    Tinka123
    +2
    Thanks :)
  • RicardoCabeza 2012/09/10 23:24:00
    RicardoCabeza
    Okay, requiring 100/100 reserves changed from 1/100 will not only slow the processes of capitalization way down, it will in effect only replace the current inefficient oligarchy with new combinations of the former and probably creating new seats of authority lacking an adequate understanding of the monetary process. There are rules that outline the Fiat process that find their root in the Enuma Elish, and according to most there are only a few functioning models and to some, there is only one model in which to operate a functioning monetary system. We are obviously far outside of that model due to several "modifications" that benefit certain segments of our society... to it's own demise.
  • DefendnProtect 2012/09/10 22:39:34
    DefendnProtect
    +3
    Great article!

    Stop forcing central planning on to people.
    central planning why
  • John Walker II 2012/09/10 19:21:45
    John Walker II
    Right now there's a requirement to keep a reserve of X percentage by all banks for their transactions. I believe it's 5% right now.. but an easy way to start working towards a 100% is by incrementally raising the percentage. Will it take time? yes. But that will also be the least shocking to folks as well as we adjust to the new standard.

    Also during this process, money can be destroyed at the federal level until the supply of cash equals to a measure of gold and silver.

    Will the federal reserve fight this? Yes.
  • ConLibFraud 2012/09/10 18:54:12
    ConLibFraud
    +3
    If the treasonous thug congress and president refuse to create and execute such legislation, then We The People should follow what the brave people of Iceland have done ...

    http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/D...

    http://crazyemailsandbackstor...

    http://politicalvelcraft.org/...
  • Seeker62 2012/09/10 18:50:27
    Seeker62
    +2
    The United States Constitution states that no state may "make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts." That seems pretty clear to me.
  • John Wa... Seeker62 2012/09/10 19:17:36
    John Walker II
    +1
    State, but that doesn't applit to the Federal gov't as a whole. They were limiting what powers the states individually had to coin money and for taxation of imports and exports.

    Full text of Article 1, section 10 of the US Constitution:
    "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

    "No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

    "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

    That refe...

    State, but that doesn't applit to the Federal gov't as a whole. They were limiting what powers the states individually had to coin money and for taxation of imports and exports.

    Full text of Article 1, section 10 of the US Constitution:
    "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

    "No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

    "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

    That refers to individual state powers, not congress.

    However, by this wording, it's possible, and probably legal, for say a state to start issuing gold and silver backed currency separate from the federal gov't.
    (more)
  • Tinka123 Seeker62 2012/09/10 20:41:24
    Tinka123
    +1
    Precisely
  • Theresa 2012/09/10 18:34:52
    Theresa
    +1
    We need to end the Fed and go back to Constitutionally mandated Money!
  • DeeB 2012/09/10 16:17:59
    DeeB
    +7
    According to the Fed itself, they have ZERO gold. So they say. End the FED, and the IRS. Get those gangsters out of our country.
  • Lady Wh... DeeB 2012/09/10 17:31:45
    Lady Whitewolf
    +4
    For once we agree!
  • DeeB Lady Wh... 2012/09/10 18:26:25
    DeeB
    +3
    I disagree! LOL! We have agreed quite a few times!
  • ConLibF... DeeB 2012/09/10 18:49:38
    ConLibFraud
    +3
    I disagree! I don't want to let these thugs go free. All of these criminals should be executed for what they have done!
  • DeeB ConLibF... 2012/09/10 19:05:08
    DeeB
    +3
    I didn't mean to let them go free, just get them to one of those third world jails or Gitmo!
  • ConLibF... DeeB 2012/09/10 19:46:12
    ConLibFraud
    +3
    Can't say here what I would like to see happen to them.
  • DeeB ConLibF... 2012/09/10 20:35:03
    DeeB
    +3
    Doesn't that suck? I can't say because I'm a lady!! LOL!
  • ConLibF... DeeB 2012/09/10 22:46:02
    ConLibFraud
    +3
    LMAO! I am reading all your thoughts.
  • DeeB ConLibF... 2012/09/10 22:58:55
    DeeB
    +2
    We probably have the same exact ones! I am so sure!
  • ConLibF... DeeB 2012/09/11 00:33:28
    ConLibFraud
    +2
    99.999999999% :)
  • DeeB ConLibF... 2012/09/11 01:51:24
    DeeB
    +2
    LOL! ;-)
  • Seeker62 DeeB 2012/09/10 18:51:51
    Seeker62
    +2
    Of course the Fed doesn't have any gold. The paper money they print is backed up by... the word of a bunch of politicians.
  • DeeB Seeker62 2012/09/10 19:08:10
    DeeB
    +2
    I bet there is NO gold in Fort Knox either. They robbed this country and all the rest blind.
  • kaZappoo 2012/09/10 16:03:28
    kaZappoo
    +5
    and to think the fore fathers fled the tyrany of ENGLAND ,because of these taxes ..

    then after it was discovered they couldnt run a GOVERNMENT ." with out massive funds they instituted taxation ., and the same story begins here !
  • Striker 2012/09/10 16:01:31
    Striker
    +6
    I'm buried in computer woes at present, but definitely want to get back here when I get things straight again. Please remind me!

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/04/20 03:18:12

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals