It doesn't sound scary to me. The Federal Reserve system is "owned" by banks, but officials appointed by the gov't run it. The system is supposed to maintain a low, stable, and positive rate of inflation. The money supply in the short-run should be consistent with the goods and services in the economy.

The result is we have a reliable medium of exchange that roughly maintains its value over several months. We don't want to change our menus every week and don't have to worry about having a small stack of cash being eaten away by inflation. We might want _never_ to change our menus and have things stay always the same, but that's impossible given how the economy changes over the years with new business developments.

All my adult life the Fed has done a good job of maintain low, stable, and positive inflation, although I vaguely remember high rates of inflation as a child.

The controversial result of the Fed system is that it can attempt to "prime the pump" if nobody's hiring until people start buying and nobody's buying until there are more jobs available, resulting in building, workers, and equipment sitting idle when they want work. This system is far from perfect, but I find it preferable to priming the pump with gov't spending or arbitrarily picking some commodity that may gain and lose value on its own as our medium of exchange. I clearly understand the idea of doing nothing and just letting people prime their own pump, as it were, but it appears to work okay to have a national bank do it.

Some people say the system enables deficit spending, but I think that's only true to the extent that being the world's reserve currency enables deficit spending.

I wish we could have a committee similar to the Fed Open Market Committee that could tell the gov't how much deficit or surplus to run. There are loads of problems in the details, but I like the concept.

What is the alternative?
Up until the creation of the FED...there had been nearly 30K different types of currency in circulation.
What about "Wildcat" banks? Would we want a return to that? Just some questions to ponder/discuss.

O.A., good point. It was never intended to provide substantive or true benefit for people at large or any other.

Hello Zenphamy,
Another thing lacking is any substantive, believable evidence of any true benefit of the Fed for the people at large...
Regards,
O.A.

Would you consider this series by Jake Towne a reasonable source for the layman? The Money Matrix – Prelude (PART 1/15)

I'm a fairly quick study, but, need to get my head wrapped correctly around the "basics". Then...into your archives....again..
"The power of a question"...priceless!

You might find this 15 part series very interesting. It's closer to your second posted link.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...

Jackson is a good example of what happens when people fight the central bankers; lead poisoning.

6%/yr return since 1913 (?) compounder would be a pretty chunk of change. Wonder if the bonuses paid come from operating expenses or from returns.

I was aware of Jackson's actions with the bank, but had never read his veto memo.

If we only had politicians like that again, (other than the Trail of Tears).

Thanks for the link.

You can't receive a finer endorsement than that in my eyes! Now I am even more determined. Thanks!

Sure. I would say look for it towards the end of February, but I'll be happy to let you know. Thanks in advance for the review. The Galt's Gulchers who have read it have liked it.

Thanks. Looking forward to it. If it wouldn't be too much trouble would you give me a heads-up when it is? I don't mind giving reviews. :)

Not yet. As part of a marketing arrangement I never used with Amazon and Kindle, I gave them an exclusive for the first 3 months. However, that runs out soon and I will get it up on B & N.

Yes

Hello straightlinelogic,
Is your book available through B&N?
Regards,
O.A.

There is no institution more incongrous with a free society than a central bank. Once the means of exchange and store of value becomes the province of what is essentially a bankers' cabal rather than objective markets, that society is marching down the road to ruin. Money should not be part of the government, it should be a market function. I would say that there are probably less than a thousand people who know what goes on at the Fed and its interactions with the rest of the government, and that is scary indeed. In the absence of knowledge, there are myriad theories and this article's is certainly plausible. The Fed's public, 100 year record of currency debasement and cartelization of the banking industry is bad enough, and we do not know what goes on behind the scenes. It is hard to believe that a former friend of Ayn Rand's--Alan Greenspan--would take the morally dubious position as Chairman of the Fed.
By the way, I write frequently about the Fed and markets on my website, straightlinelogic.com, and I have a novel, The Golden Pinnacle, which makes a straightforward case against central banking. I was involved with the financial markets for many years.

Excellent! I have read that Jackson considered the closing of the central bank his greatest presidential achievement and rightly so.

I believe that President Andrew Jackson's reasoning on July 10, 1832 is as valid today as it was then. In his words...

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/writin...

"Ownership" of The Fed :
http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about...

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/federal...