上位 200 件のコメント表示する 500

[–]TDual 802 ポイント803 ポイント  (299子コメント)

How in the world can you justify those statements?

Under Yellen's tenure, inflation has been incredibly low. In no justifiable way has she 'stolen' the value of your wages or savings.

edit to add: nor has she 'drowned' us in debt. This is nonsense. She does not force you to take on debt or has not forced the congress to take on debt in our name. These statements made in the picture are just false.

[–]tpa_bcn 259 ポイント260 ポイント  (95子コメント)

Ha right, there's no logical consistency at all. If you are upset with the Fed for inflation (which as others point out is historically low) then you probably also know that it is good for debtors, as the real value of their debt falls. Deflationary policy would see debtors drowning, not the reverse.

[–]was_promised_welfareModerate Libertarian 109 ポイント110 ポイント  (35子コメント)

And despite how garbage the statements are, this is still getting upvoted.

[–]drdrillaz 114 ポイント115 ポイント  (30子コメント)

98% of redditors have no clue how the economy works or what the Fed does and why it does it.

[–]EvanGRogersAnarcho-Capitalist 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (5子コメント)

The Fed is an evil institution that should be abolished. We should have privatized money.

[–]W3NTZ 45 ポイント46 ポイント  (2子コメント)

And 98% just read the title, thumbnail, and upvote

[–]lemonparty"libertarian socialism" is like "sanitary landfill" 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (1子コメント)

These comments are cancer. So, that's fair.

[–]smokeyjoe69 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Seriously, How does r/libertarian not understand how inflation is shown in the price of goods? What is this Keynsian territory?

https://mises.org/blog/how-inflation-ruined-chocolate-bar

[–]Voluntarist_ 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

The dollar has lost 98% of its value since the creation of the Fed.

[–]RES_KnowsYourSins 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (3子コメント)

I'm concerned with how many people don't know who the chairman of the Fed is? Greenspan, Bernanke, Yellen- these are pretty common names in news stories and discussions on major issues :/

[–]drdrillaz 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (1子コメント)

What's more concerning is they have no idea what the Fed is or does. For the average person, knowing who the Fed chairman is means nothing. But knowing what the Fed does is important

[–]Zorkmid123 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think the Fed Chairman has always tried to keep themselves relatively low key. They don't necessarily want to be too well known amongst the public.

[–]drewtammoderate 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I could say the same for economists. :)

[–]Call_the_LawI Voted Gary Johnson 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

This sub has been usurped by Trumptards.

[–]lemonparty"libertarian socialism" is like "sanitary landfill" 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I upvoted it just because of the level of leftist indignation in the comments.

[–]hastala 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Because MUH GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE

[–]Solinvictusbc 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Why debate inflationary vs deflationary policies? Libertarians dgaf about the first two words... they care about the word policy. We shouldn't have the government decide one way or another whether spending or saving is better.

[–]DaktushSpanish Libertarian 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Well inflation is just a hidden tax on savings, makes sense this sub would hate it like any other tax

[–]tpa_bcn 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Totally fair and internally consistent point to raise. What's not logical is saying the inflation somehow makes debtors worse off. All else equal, the real value of their debt falls.

[–]EvanGRogersAnarcho-Capitalist 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (2子コメント)

The only thing to actually be upset about in the post is that Yellen hasn't drowned ME in debt. The US government, however, who will have to make up the cost of its drunken ways, will have to raise taxes eventually, or simply renege all of its promises.

THEN I'll just move to another country.

[–]Hubert___Cumberdale 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (13子コメント)

So has this sub has gone full statist? Now thinking the government should set prices such as the interest rate?

[–]EvanGRogersAnarcho-Capitalist 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yeah, these comments are astonishing to read in a libertarian subreddit.

[–]lemonparty"libertarian socialism" is like "sanitary landfill" 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

/r/politics brigade

[–]tpa_bcn 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (4子コメント)

First off, I stumbled in of /r/all and am not a libertarian. Thanks for having me.

As for my point, and why I think it has been well received here, I'm not making a case for or against the fed or its policies. I was only pointing out that the meme in question does a poor job of illustrating a consistent policy position. The problems this meme attributes to the Fed simply don't make any sense if you actually think about what the Fed does and how it does it.

[–]EvanGRogersAnarcho-Capitalist 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The problems this meme attributes to the Fed simply don't make any sense if you actually think about what the Fed does and how it does it.

... "creating money like a drunken sailor in order to drop interest rates to 0 for a decade" is (a) exactly what the fed does, and (b) is an atrocious policy.

I was only pointing out that the meme in question does a poor job of illustrating a consistent policy position.

... it illustrated the policy in question quite perfectly, actually.

[–]Hubert___Cumberdale 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

if you actually think about what the Fed does and how it does it.

Creates money, then gives it to banks as low interest loans?

It's a crude way of putting it but apt I feel.

[–]tpa_bcn 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Sure you could say that if you wanted. I'd take issue with some of the simplification but its a fine bit of rhetoric for describing the function. If you go on to say that somehow that increases the consumer debt load as felt by an individual, I'm gonna stop you though.

[–]Hubert___Cumberdale 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It decreases the load of an individual already in debt, however it encourages people to take on debt with enticing rates. On the other side it makes saving less attractive and discourages consumers making puchases with savings. It's also argued that it encourages lenders to lend less responsibly.

The only sensible things to get in debt for are investments, not consumer goods.

For the banks it's not about helping individuals but about banks maximising their profits from them. If it's about stimulating the economy and spending, a check in the post would be prefferable thanks.

[–]zgott300Filthy Statist 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (5子コメント)

If the fed is loaning the money then it gets to set the interest rate that you pay when borrowing from them. What the fuck is wrong with that? Banks don't have to borrow from the fed if they don't want to.

[–]Hubert___Cumberdale 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

I don't want the human filth that make up a good protion of the banking elite to be privileged by the state. To be granted a prestigious trough to gorge on, even if this feed truely came from nowhere I'd spit on it. Let alone the fact it's sourced via wealth siphoned from every dollar.

[–]RaulphlaunPocahontas 2020 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

When the dollar losses it's value it's fine that your debt becomes worthless, but not if you save in dollars.

[–]J0HN-GALT 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

This is an argument but not a fact.

Are people on a fixed income better off when their purchasing power goes down?

How about people or corporations who made investments?

[–]sweYoda 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (6子コメント)

Also, she isn't the creator of the policies, she is just doing her job. And in her position she cannot really go out of her way to talk about how things should or should not be, because that would send signals to the market. Though, she probably believes in the work she is doing.

[–]carlos_the_dwarf_ 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

For all that econ 101 talk they do, libertarians must not have paid much attention when they were literally sitting in econ 101.

[–]Nave722 131 ポイント132 ポイント  (36子コメント)

This is just another garbage post that makes libertarians look like teenagers that just read Atlas Shrugged. OP clearly doesn't understand what the FED actually does and as you look through this thread you see that its void of any alternative currency suggestions let alone alternative currencies that wouldn't increase inequality like a gold standard or not be subject to rapid inflation. This is just as bad as the hearings where Bernie Sanders keeps asking Bernanke his thoughts on income equality and the 1% as if that's determined by monetary policy rather than fiscal policy.

[–]Darkeyescry22 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (30子コメント)

Well first of all, a deflating currency is bad for the economy, as it encourages saving over investing, increases the cost of debt, and generally increases the opportunity cost of every purchase.

That said, a good deflationary alternative does actually exist. Bitcoin. Or more generally, deflationary cryptocurrency. For the reasons above, using this as the primary currency would be stupid, but it's there.

[–]NimbleCentipod 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Bitcoin isn't really deflationary because the money supply can't contract. Only the price of good and services change over time (and prices of goods and services doesn't really mean that much). Only since Keynes have we've defines inflation as a change in the overall price level of goods and services.

[–]BartWellingtonson 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (16子コメント)

as it encourages saving over investing

Americans have spent so much they're in more debt than almost any time before. Debt can be good, but that's not true all the time.

increases the cost of debt

Imagine if we weren't all drowning in debt! Can you imagine if the Federal Reserve hadn't been artificially making debt as inexpensive as possible in 2001-2007? The cost of debt should be affected by market supply and demand, not a centralized printing press.

and generally increases the opportunity cost of every purchase

It would also generally increase the value of your money, especially your savings.

[–]Sly_and_the_3rdStone 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Debt can be good, but that's not true all the time.

Consumer spending is about 70% of the economy.

Imagine if we weren't all drowning in debt!

I'm not.

The cost of debt should be affected by market supply and demand, not a centralized printing press.

It is. No one is lending to you at the Fed funds rate.

It would also generally increase the value of your money, especially your savings.

Why would it affect your savings more than any other dollar you have?

[–]BartWellingtonson 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (2子コメント)

It is. No one is lending to you at the Fed funds rate.

The Federal Funds Rate affects the entire economy. Not a single person should deny that. The Federal Funds Rate is purposefully raised or lowered in order to raise or lower interest rates throughout the economy. That is the purpose of Federal Open Market Operations. The goal of lowering interest rates is to get banks to lower their interest rates so that more people can afford to borrow.

Why would it affect your savings more than any other dollar you have?

It wouldn't but you would most notice this in your savings account. I'm getting about 0.05% in my savings account while my parents reminisce about how they got 2-3% when they were younger.

[–]Sly_and_the_3rdStone 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yes, of course the Fed Funds rate affects other rates, but it doesn't set them. The market does.

And deflation has nothing to do with with your savings account. Higher interest rates would have that effect on the rate you earn, but deflation is a different mechanism entirely.

[–]BartWellingtonson 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yes, of course the Fed Funds rate affects other rates, but it doesn't set them. The market does.

Yes, that's why they call it Federal Open Market Operations. The Fed affects the rates by taking on a huge role in the market. They want to affect interest rates across the board by using the market. The purpose of OMO is to increase or decrease the amount of cash in the financial system, thus raising or lowering the supply of money, and therefore affecting the prices of all loans.

And deflation has nothing to do with with your savings account. Higher interest rates would have that effect on the rate you earn, but deflation is a different mechanism entirely.

You're right, but if the Fed wasn't flooding the banks with cash, savings rates would be much higher.

[–]Darkeyescry22 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Say it with me. Inflation reduces the cost of debt.

You cannot say that inflation causes people to drown in debt.

[–]BartWellingtonson 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (2子コメント)

It reduces outstanding debt, but artificially lowering interest rates through the Open Market Operations of the Fed has the purpose of increasing debt. That's the whole point of it, to make interest rates lower so more people and companies can afford more loans.

Inflation is also priced into new loans. Otherwise financial institutions would constantly be losing money or failing to hit targets. They're not stupid, they hang on every word the Fed says, especially their planned inflation target of 2%.

[–]Jufft 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

but artificially lowering interest rates through the Open Market Operations of the Fed has the purpose of increasing debt

Not necessarily. Assuming so is just reasoning from a price change.

[–]Thewhiterabbit7 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yep. I do know how the fed works. I'm all for alt currency. I own BTC. The reason for alt currency is to counteract the faulty monetary policy of the fed that has devalued the dollar by continuing ZIRP.

[–]sunthas 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

or because no producers in a marketplace should have a government guaranteed monopoly?

[–]zgott300Filthy Statist 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

makes libertarians look like teenagers that just read Atlas Shrugged.

I think many of them are.

[–]VforFivedetta 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

“It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.” ― Murray Rothbard

[–]Justinw303minarchist 45 ポイント46 ポイント  (8子コメント)

Really wish images like these would be removed by the mods...

[–]ChocolateSunrise 25 ポイント26 ポイント  (2子コメント)

If the mods were active then this subreddit wouldn't have been taken over by the Trumpettes.

[–]ebone23John Galt's cabin boy 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (1子コメント)

This is nonsense

Welcome to the top of /r/libertarian. This post will soon be replaced by another ridiculous meme, followed by a post extolling some angelic virtue of Rand Paul, only to be dethroned by another post of equal or greater cringe.

[–]kozmo1313 22 ポイント23 ポイント  (5子コメント)

"printing money" "drowning in debt"

so logically inconsistent.... we are drowning in debt that is owed in a kind of money that we make? hmmm....

[–]You-Smell-Nice 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Right, because nothing bad has ever come from a government printing a bunch of money to pay off a debt...

[–]kozmo1313 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

all money is debt. we can't make any new money without incurring debt... so we literally can't "print money" to pay off debt.

but that said, our "debt" is much more like the debt a bank incurs when it accepts deposits. not like household debt whatsoever.

and, unfortunately, as our economy grows and as foreign countries hoard dollars, we HAVE to print more currency to AVOID inflation.

right now, there are only 10% of real dollars vs our national debt. even if we used ever dollar in circulation, we would still "owe" 18 trillion more dollars.

the whole system is based on artificial scarcity. national debts will NEVER be paid off. how could they be?

[–]Deathspiral222 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

all money is debt. we can't make any new money without incurring debt... so we literally can't "print money" to pay off debt.

Can you explain? If I mine, say, 1 bitcoin, where is the debt? Who owes it and who owns it?

[–]kozmo1313 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

sorry. commodity based 'currencies' like bitcoin and gold and puka shells are all based on real scarcity... bitcoin is "mined" to prevent it from being too rapidly diluted .... but do bear in mind, its scarcity and demand has driven the prices way way up. it would not make a good negotiable instrument to run an economy on (just yet).

dollars are created via a double entry... either the sale of a debt instrument like bonds or an increase of the money supply via monetary policy.

[–]inxile7objectivist 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well that's the benefit of having the reserve currency of the world. We own the check book, and the money maker.

[–]newaccount1619 25 ポイント26 ポイント  (28子コメント)

Thank you. Inflation predates central banking by a very long time. There was even an inflation crisis in Rome during the third century. The Fed helps keep inflation under control, like when Volcker's Fed crushed hyperinflation in the late 70's/early 80's.

[–]Doctor_Watson 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (21子コメント)

How am I reading /r/libertarian? The debt that OP is referencing is the spending of newly created fiat currency supplied by the Federal Reserve, which must be repaid through taxation of the citizens of the USA. How is this controversial? Sure, maybe we can debate whether this is "good" or "bad" from a consequentialist perspective but it's by no means controversial.

Also, money supply stability has significant volatility in purely fiat economies, and volatility is managed by taking the value of savings form the past and spending it today. How long have I been gone from /r/libertarian to return and see the most up voted comments defending the federal reserve? Good God

edit: Ah, I see your comment history: pro-high minimum wage, pro-Obama, pro-taxing the rich. Got it.

[–]TotesMessenger 28 ポイント29 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)

[–]newaccount1619 44 ポイント45 ポイント  (11子コメント)

How am I reading /r/libertarian? The debt that OP is referencing is the spending of newly created fiat currency supplied by the Federal Reserve, which must be repaid through taxation of the citizens of the USA. How is this controversial? Sure, maybe we can debate whether this is "good" or "bad" from a consequentialist perspective but it's by no means controversial.

Taxation predates central banking, in America and other places, so painting the Fed as an enabler of some crooked legalized theft is inaccurate. What you're saying isn't controversial, it's obvious.

Also, money supply stability has significant volatility in purely fiat economies, and volatility is managed by taking the value of savings form the past and spending it today. How long have I been gone from /r/libertarian to return and see the most up voted comments defending the federal reserve? Good God

In properly managed economies with sensible monetary and fiscal policy fiat currency is not volatile. Inflation and deflation, with the rare exceptions of international crises, have been kept at reasonable, even beneficial, levels. Maybe in the time since you've last been to /r/libertarian, more people have decided to examine issues from all angles and entertain nuanced views based in fact rather than dogma. Read the post you responded to. Everything I said is true.

edit: Ah, I see your comment history: pro-high minimum wage, pro-Obama, pro-taxing the rich. Got it.

And I don't need to see your comment history to understand you: Desire for vast oversimplification and a stubborn unwillingness to consider any view or perspective not pre-conceived or already arrived at.

[–]carlos_the_dwarf_ 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Taxation predates central banking

So, too, government debt.

[–]smokeyjoe69 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Its a more insidious form of taxation because the populous is not aware of the effects of expanding the money supply but they are felt most closely by the poor as it destroys savings and rises the price of consumer goods to inflate the stock market and support flawed profit models which exacerbates bubbles and slows growth. I doubt he was claiming central banks are the only form of taxation, just making the point that one of the reasons governments like central banks is it enables them to engage in expansion beyond what they can get out of the tax base.

[–]newaccount1619 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Expanding the money supply is often necessary, as the limited and ineffectual monetary responses of gold standard countries during the great depression demonstrate.

The poor don't really have savings, and if they did, the kind of volatility the Fed helps avoid is far worse. Inflation predates, and happens independent of the Fed. They just help regulate it.

[–]zzzzz94 16 ポイント17 ポイント  (7子コメント)

You've been posted to /r/badeconomics. Reposting here:

he debt that OP is referencing is the spending of newly created fiat currency supplied by the Federal Reserve, which must be repaid through taxation of the citizens of the USA. How is this controversial?

I am guessing this user believes that the government I guess uses the federal reserve to fund it's spending, and just asks them to print money when they need it? This is "controversial" because it is incorrect. The federal reserve only buys securities on the open market at the market price. It never buys directly from the treasury, nor will it if the government asks it to do so. So the government does not spend "newly created money", it has to borrow it from the private sector always. The amount of money created therefore is not government debt that must be repaid. Saying the federal reserve is responsible for government debt is ridiculous, the federal reserve has no say or influence in how much debt the government chooses to take on (although low interest rates may incentivize more borrowing)

money supply stability has significant volatility in purely fiat economies,

What's important, rather than the money supply, is the inflation rate. The increase or decrease in the money supply is really to effect inflation. Here we can compare stability in the inflation rate for the US (graph constructed by Integralds). It's obvious which periods are more stable. Particularly in the last 35 years or so when we have understood monetary policy fairly well, inflation has been incredibly stable unlike anything before seen in history.

Some fiat currencies like Venezuela or Zimbabwe can have hyperinflation, but this is the result of poor monetary policy and a lack of independence of the central bank. Fiat currency controlled by an independent central bank has an incredibly high potential for stability when compared to the gold standard or any other standard.

How long have I been gone from /r/libertarian to return and see the most up voted comments defending the federal reserve?

Hopefully the sub has gained a little bit of sense

[–]Doctor_Watson 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (6子コメント)

It is unfortunate that you refuse to acknowledge the Federal Reserve's credit creation mechanisms and it's interaction with the US Federal Government. The creation of readily liquefiable accounts by the Federal Reserve, the creation of credit that did not exist prior to the creation of those accounts, the loaning of that buying power to the Federal Government (and others), and then subsequent use of that buying power by the Federal Government undeniably equates to an inflation of the money supply and the transfer of the saved buying power of one group to the new spender. The change in prices does not occur instantly, but permeates through the economy at a slower than instant rate, after they credit is spent by its possessors. Without this Federal Reserve mechanism, the ability for the Federal Government to spend in the quantity that it does (and for banks to loan as much money as they do) would not exist. And of course the low interest rates incentivize more spending - spending many times the amount of the very credit it just created.

[–]jscoppeⒶⒶrdvⒶrk 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (10子コメント)

Yellen is just the current figure-head. But the Fed has been increasing the money supply ridiculously fast in the last decade:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M1

This hasn't resulted in increased consumer prices as of late, due to the market hesitation which resulted from the housing crash, but the money is out in the system. If banks ever decided to start lending at a high rate again, inflation would probably be out of the Fed's control at that point. There's only so much the Fed can do to recall that new money creation.

And if rates go up to historical levels like 10%, servicing the national debt becomes something like 1/3 of the federal budget or more. So "drowning id debt" is accurate if that happens. But it's not feasible to keep rates low forever, so how can the debt issue be avoided?

[–]TDual 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (4子コメント)

So, the fed doesn't print money in that sense. Banks create money through loan origination. The fed does affect the total amount of federal reserves in the system which, through requirements on banks to maintain a certain amount of reserves/liabilities does put a ceiling on money creation.

Notice, during that huge rise in M1, the inflation rate has been muted.

Just as the fed created a bunch of reserves recently to try and stimulate lending, it can also easily reduce outstanding reserves restricting supply if needed.

I agree that there is a lot of 'capacity' for money generation in the system in terms of no direct control through reserve limits by the fed, but that does not mean we will see rampant inflation. There are many other factors and it's far too simplistic a view to see this as a one factor system. You could take a strong risk adverse approach and insist on tight reserve limits but then you limit yourself on other actions that can be taken to help other monetary issues.

It's a balancing game which current inflation rates by no means give evidence that the fed is playing it wrong. But who know's the future. I just think it's far too early to be making accusations of misconduct.

[–]jscoppeⒶⒶrdvⒶrk 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (3子コメント)

that does not mean we will see rampant inflation

Sure, we could get lucky and the banks will continue to not lend. But people are actually upset about that. Political will may one day force banks to start lending again, which could mean M3 (and others) money supply exponential growth. Yes, there are limits, but the system is not even remotely testing those limits right now.

I just think it's far too early to be making accusations of misconduct.

I can't really point at individual actions and say "there, that's bad!". What I'm more concerned about is the Fed's overall ability to do the job they were designed to do. I personally don't believe anyone is capable of doing that job. I've said elsewhere in this thread that the Fed's role is a losing proposition. It's like herding cats. I just think it can't be done reliably.

[–]sny321 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

No, inflation hasent come because of the commodity crash that happened 2-3 years ago (oil). That has led to the almost deflation we have been in for 3 years. Also there has been no scarcity in the US which is really the main driver of inflation. National debt to gdp or to budget is a mongering tool.

[–]I_divided_by_0- 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

You think QE won't eventually lead to inflation? Ha. Ha ha. Hahahahahahahahaha

[–]adelari 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (6子コメント)

what the fuck are you talking about.. these statements are very justifiable.. the Feds control the flow of money that comes in and out of the market.. which surprise is a great determining factor on inflation.. what does inflation mean: a sustained increase in the general price level of goods and services in an economy over a period of time resulting in a loss of value of currency. The fact Americans have to live paycheck to paycheck and use credit cards to pay for basic necessities, is due to the Feds predatory economic policy.. yeah the reason inflation has been "low" is because of the ample amount of cheap money that has been printed out to prop up a fiat currency that isn't worth the ink that's on the paper.. cost of living has gone up and the wage has been stagnant for decades.. and you think the Feds have no part in that? If you believe that, than I have beach front property in Montana to sell you.

[–]dankenthymeme 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (3子コメント)

You're looking at price inflation. This depends on the velocity of money (which, by the way is just reverse engineered from GDP).

Austro-libertarians care also about monetary inflation. Since Yellen has been at the FED (2010 she was vice, then chair in 2014), the Treasury has "printed" over $1.5 trillion.

Where does that money go? Commercial banks. They've tried to lend it out, which would likely increase the velocity of money and cause price inflation, but general pessimism and regulation (see Dodd Frank) have largely slowed lending. So what do rich bankers do with money when they can't can't lend it out? Well...take a look at the current stock market.

It's one bubble after another, just in different forms.

As for the other claims, the FED's job is rigging interest rates. Otherwise, interest rates would serve a free-market function of coordinating time preference. That's not what the FED manipulates interest rates for. They buy and sell bonds in an attempt to influence the economy away from inflation and unemployment, and they are historically awful at doing so.

Also, by keeping bond yields low means that insurance companies and pension funds are forced into riskier assets to maintain their balance sheets. What happens if those riskier assets fail to pay off? The concept of "saving" has been a joke for years; Keynesians shake in their boots when the public is not consuming.

It's not a great image macro, but to say the statements are flatly unjustified because price inflation has not yet manifested is silly.

[–]TDual 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (2子コメント)

So you post demonstrates a signifcant lack of understanding of the current monetary system which really undermines your claims.

1) The Treasury does not "print" or create anything except physical currency. This measure is reflected in M0, not M1 (which is what you linked to). M0 has grown much much slower than M1 because we haven't increased our physical currency supply too greatly in the past several years. The majority of what makes up M1 is deposits held at commercial banks that were created by the banks during loan origination. This is not anything the treasury did.

2) All this money in M1 did not go to big banks. It went to consumers and businesses when they applied for loans.

3) You're likely confusing this money with federal deposits which are created by the fed banking system. This is what the fed has rapidly expanded. However, fed deposits are not bank deposits like you and I have and can not be used to buy things at a store. They can only reside at a federal reserve bank and are chiefly used for inter-bank settling of overnight debts. They can not be used to by the big banks to go out and buy stocks, juicing the market as you claim.

The 2008-09 crash precipitated a strong credit contraction which rapidly decreased the overall flow of money in our economy. The fed lowered rates to incentive borrowing to try to soften this rapid contraction. You may think that was not a good move and we should have let credit supplies contract even further. That's fine, but it's very much not the opinion of many many even conservative economists.

Your misunderstanding of the banking system I think is strongly coloring your view of current events and leading to wrong interpretations.

[–]dankenthymeme 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

You're right about a lot here...especially regarding the treasury. I actually knew this but wrote treasury anyway as an attempt not to talk too much "inside baseball." That's why I had quotes around the word printed. As a result I was simply wrong. Thanks for correcting me.

With regard to the recent QE policies, I thought this money still increased the money supply regardless of commercial lending. Is this wrong? When the FED has purchased the commercial assets, do they not electronically deposit funds to the banks?

Thanks for your help.

[–]RPDBF 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (32子コメント)

She does want inflation she's advocated for higher inflation letting it run hot for a while.

[–]TDual 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (31子コメント)

Yes. The Fed has a mandate to target 2% inflation and they are taking actions to affect Monetary policy to achieve this. Whether you think 2% is too high and robbery is fine discussion but it is definitely quite low by recent historical standards.

[–]Count-Germain 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I take it you guys are the Liberal Shill army I keep hearing about?

[–]Rubenn13 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Exactly. People upvoting this don't know how the economy works. Also, much more money is created through loans and not by actually printing money.

[–]candidly1 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

ZIRP has been the real problem, not inflation.

[–]fbsniper 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Increasing the Fed rate makes the dollar worth less, basic economics.

[–]Shadowfox4532 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Really weird accusation given she also uses and has money... devaluing it hurts her equally (arguably more but at least equally)

[–]DRAAIIIIINNNNIDGE 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Perhaps interest rates are in fact near the real interest rate. We won't know because of the federal reserve system. If it's different however, she's fucking over either savers or borrowers.

[–]TDual 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Haha, so no matter what she's a loser...quite the definition there.

[–]DRAAIIIIINNNNIDGE 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I mean it's not a personal attack. She heads an institution with the power to set interest rates. Nominal vs real interest rates is a thing. So a lower than real interest rate harms savers while a higher rate harms borrowers.

[–]AvailableUsername100 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

You seem a bit confused. Real interest is just nominal adjusted for inflation.

[–]jrheritaVoted LP in a Swing State [PA] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Curious though that we never see deflation ...

[–]Dracula_in_Auschwitz 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Honest question, the federal reserve balance sheet increased to 4.5 trillion, up maybe 3 trillion since financial crisis. This is essentially new money in circulation.

Do you believe this has no effect? Agree that inflation hasn't increased yet and banks are sitting on it. But do you think there are any unforseen consequences of rapidly increasing the money supply?

[–]TDual 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (4子コメント)

That money is not at all in circulation. There are two kinds of money (this is not an analogy). They hold federal reserves, not commercial demand deposits (what you and I use).

So no, it's not new money in circulation in the sense you mean.

[–]Dracula_in_Auschwitz 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

So basically the fed printed all this money and gave it to banks to hold as reserves. Nothing to see here?

[–]RPrevolutionvoluntaryist 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Under Yellen's tenure, inflation has been incredibly low.

Compared to what?

In no justifiable way has she 'stolen' the value of your wages or savings.

Artificial and forced inflation decreases the value of the money people hold, which is theft.

She does not force you to take on debt

True

[–]TDual 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

For the first point, compared to historical inflation in the US over the last 40 years.

The second point is a philosophical one. If you define all inflation as theft, then well, that's a much bigger debate.

[–]unpopularpinion 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Inflation is all relative but the transfer of money from private sector & Us households to US Treasury at the tune of 90 billion /year is in fact wealth confiscation.

[–]TDual 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

You mean in addition to the $2.9 Trillion in federal taxes collected? Yep, highway robbery right there.

Oh wait, that's interest paid by the US government to service it's debt, that's paid to itself. Yep, that's a huge problem....stop the presses.

How about the Government starts paying itself $5 Trillion/year to the treasury, would that be a robbery? $10 Trillion?

[–]Plastictreemoose 112 ポイント113 ポイント  (61子コメント)

She's been the chair for three years, Im sure its all her fault

[–]jscoppeⒶⒶrdvⒶrk 23 ポイント24 ポイント  (53子コメント)

Greenspan and Bernanke are more to blame, but she's the current figure-head, who has been maintaining the exact same policies. They are all interchangeable, honestly. The only Fed chair in recent history that was any different than the others was Volcker.

[–]FreshAsBasil 23 ポイント24 ポイント  (13子コメント)

THEYRE ALL THE SAME BECAUSE THEY SIMPLY ACT ON ECONOMIC PRINCIPALS TO MANAGE INFLATION. Volcker is considered special by people because he cured stagflation that was caused by an oil supply shock, something never encountered before, and he did it by inducing a recession and then implementing recessionary policies. You guys look like bunch of idiots who didn't even take high school economics when I see posts like this. This sub is being taken over by russian bots more and more everyday, it's the only reason a post from this subreddit is seen on all nowadays.

[–]Barrilete_Cosmico 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Also Volcker stopped tackling inflation at about 4% a year, the following 3 all have it averaging 2% or less and yet they are the devil.

[–]jscoppeⒶⒶrdvⒶrk 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

To an extent, I agree. Volcker might have performed the same way, say, Bernanke did if he was in the same position, however I am very skeptical that Yellen or Bernanke or Greenspan would take the same kind of actions Volcker did in the same situation.

[–][削除されました]  (9子コメント)

[deleted]

    [–]FreshAsBasil 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (8子コメント)

    Here's a news flash: inflation is necessary for a growing population. Guess what the rate of growth in the USA is: 2%. Guess what the inflation rate is: 2%. Without inflation you'd have too little money chasing too many goods. It's simple economics.

    [–]boona 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (5子コメント)

    you'd have too little money chasing too many goods.

    Money is infinitely divisible, I would happily pay a quarter penny for goods.

    If the economy grows by 2% without inflating the money supply, roughly speaking everyone's salary would increase by 2% because of the increase in purchasing power. Instead that 2% is being siphoned off by the federal reserve.

    [–]Plastictreemoose 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    See my comment below on inflation, also economic growth doesn't change purchasing power it changes how much money companies are making and that does not translate to the average person as their wages are constant.

    [–]FreshAsBasil 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Uhhhh no that 2% is being added to CEOs checks. That's why we have such a big income gap. The fed doesn't take money out of circulation. And yeah maybe it's quarter penny for some goods today but in 150 years it'll be .00001 pennies for a piece of gum. It's nonsensical.

    [–]pandagene 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    That's totally not true everyone that I know has their salary rising at a steady 2 percent rate.

    [–]Jufft 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Currently economists believe that money is neutral in the )long run at least). In other words it is silly to say that "2% of growth is destroyed" because that is just looking at a nominal value and not a real one which is what we care about. It isn't as if we would have had 3% gdp growth last year in the USA if the inflation rate was 0%.

    [–]repmackRand Paul 2016 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Oil supply shock? I belive we used more oil during the shock per year than the year after or before the shock. It wasn't some natural event.

    [–]Magnum__Dong 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I thought i remember seeing a video of Milton Friedman who, despite his dislike for the federal reserve, said Greenspan did pretty well. Did he change towards the end of his time as chairman?

    [–]Thewhiterabbit7 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Exactly. I don't understand how people are defending her as if she is any different from Bernanke or Greenspan.

    [–]Plastictreemoose 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (36子コメント)

    Personally I'm all for the federal reserve as long as they do their jobs well, I actually think Bernake and Yeller know far more about economics than any of their predecessors and did better at controlling inflation and getting the banks back on track after the recession.

    [–]jscoppeⒶⒶrdvⒶrk 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (34子コメント)

    It's a losing proposition. The job can be done "well" and the market decides to take a shit anyway. It's literally what Hayek described as the "fatal conceit". That is, a central planner thinking they can outsmart the market will get burned in the end. There's just a lack of real-time information that prevents central planning from being as effective as market forces.

    And stop ceding authority to bankers just because you are uninformed. Instead, you should get informed. If you agree with them, that's fine, but if you just throw your hands up and shrug out of ignorance, that's a problem.

    [–]zzzzz94 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (8子コメント)

    That is, a central planner thinking they can outsmart the market will get burned in the end.

    They don't believe this though. The consensus among economists, which Yellen, Bernanke, etc. are well aware of, is you can't predict recessions. They can't, they don't pretend to be able to. With or without central banking, they happen. At least a central bank gives us tools to react to them.

    [–]chalbersmaFlairitarian 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    The problem is that we've stopped trying to manage currency/banking system well and we've started to meet alternative goals (like hitting an employment number). We're making the same mistakes made in the 1920s but nobody seems to care.

    [–]madbuilder 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (3子コメント)

    Of course it's not all her fault. If Yellen didn't believe in its policies she wouldn't have led the institution for three years. The leader of any organization is responsible for the consequences of its policies.

    [–]Plastictreemoose 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    I won't deny that she believes in the policies, but by that logic Trump believes in everything Obama did.

    [–]JoeBrewski 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    This. We've been being fucked for much longer than she's been with the Fed.

    [–]DarthRusty 60 ポイント61 ポイント  (10子コメント)

    I'm pretty sure anyone who is even mildly aware of politics has heard of Yelen.

    [–]Idfuqhim 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (7子コメント)

    its not that, its just that the common "political" redditor (still in college) still hasnt learned that the American population isnt as dumb as their post modernist teachers tell them they are.

    [–]HTownian25 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Lulwhut? Post-modernist teachers? Put down the bong, chief.

    Plenty of econ classes cover the existence of the federal reserve, where it came from, and how it functions. Few then proceed to editorialize by claiming the establishment of an interest rate constitutes "rigging" or that lending money constitutes "printing" it.

    Even fewer claim that the Fed is "drowning" people in debt, as though credit card loans and student debts were forced on people against their will.

    [–]Idfuqhim 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    LOL, what a read.

    the concept was that the American population "doesnt know" who runs the fed. And that is what is being discussed in post modernist society right now, that the general pop doesnt know or doesnt care whats going on in the political sectors of government. Get off your fucking high horse "chief"

    [–]OJSamson 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    you need to quite the projection.

    [–]brennon 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I'm Canadian and even I know who she is.

    [–]kushinboots 29 ポイント30 ポイント  (3子コメント)

    Can you explain how the chairman of the Fed is responsible for wage stagnation?

    [–]dankenthymeme 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    What wage stagnation?

    According to the study, workers continuously employed in full-time jobs received wage increases higher than inflation from 2002 to 2015. in 2015, there was a 3.5 percent increase after inflation, up from 1.2 percent in 2010.

    It's typically the median wage that we look at when we say wages are stagnant. But the median wage is misleading, because the report found that it's mostly driven by demographic changes (the baby boomers with higher salaries starting to retire and the millennials starting out in part-time or lower paying jobs). This explanation also corroborates the FED's more recent decision to start raising rates.

    [–]stemnewsjunkie 42 ポイント43 ポイント  (29子コメント)

    This started long before Yellen got into office.

    At this point she's hardly to blame and has actually raised interest more than lowered.

    [–]Pag_Elodea 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (3子コメント)

    Funnily enough, Greenspan was actually quite supportive of a gold standard back in the day (and still is now adays I think)

    http://www.constitution.org/mon/greenspan_gold.htm

    [–]KickedinTheDick 30 ポイント31 ポイント  (12子コメント)

    I love showing people Greenspan saying "there is no agency of government which can override actions we take". Something about that intervirw is eerie..

    [–]newaccount1619 32 ポイント33 ポイント  (7子コメント)

    Technically, that's not true, as the Fed is overseen by Congress. Like any act of Congress, the Federal Reserve Act can be amended or repealed.

    Greenspan was commenting on how the Fed was created with a great degree of independence. Congress can't simply remove Fed governors on a whim. They either need to serve their term or the act must be amended. The point was to avoid politicizing the Fed.

    [–]boona 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

    Technically, that's not true, as the Fed is overseen by Congress.

    Technically maybe, but congress has yet to even audit it, much less have any kind of oversight.

    [–]newaccount1619 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    They grill the govs twice a year and the GAO audits the Fed.

    [–]guitar_vigilante 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Uh, they audit it every year.

    [–]CompleteShutInminarchist 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Can you link it? Sounds imteresting.

    [–]KickedinTheDick 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    https://youtu.be/O9dVQi-APZ8 particular section

    https://youtu.be/ol3mEe8TH7w longest video i can find. Cant find the full interview, though

    [–]eyereadgood 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Wow that clip actually sent shivers up my spine. How fucking scary is that...

    [–]duhhobo 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    This is scary of course, but I don't like the idea of the Trump administration trying to strong arm the fed either.

    [–]thebross9 30 ポイント31 ポイント  (6子コメント)

    Sounds like someone from t_d is bringing their nonexistent logic in here

    [–]Muffinator4friedmanite 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Yes, ending the Fed was never a libertarian position before Trump.

    /s

    [–]OJSamson 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (3子コメント)

    that's exactly whats happening. Trump has professed wanting to end the fed. he also want to pay off the debt by printing money.

    [–]zyzzogeton 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    The Fed is a private corporation... so leave them alone. /s

    [–]harbeas 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Ron Paul has advocated for years that the fed needs to be audited and even dissolved. No one seems to be listening.

    [–]TotesMessenger 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

    If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)

    [–]ohyou123 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    The whole economy centrally planned through an institution with a government granted monopoly on the entire monetary system being celebrated by /r/Libertarian's well known mickey mouse "libertarians"....more news at 11.

    [–]sew_butthurt 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Ugh. What I wouldn't give to never hear her voice again.

    [–]sonickid101 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Since when did libertarians get infested with FED apologists? I thought we were almost universally against government intervention in the economy.

    [–][削除されました]  (1子コメント)

    [deleted]

      [–]metalliskamutualist 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      and its historical inaccuracies made clear to all. Also don't forget the bias the author threw in there.

      [–]VStarffin 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      This critique has never sense to me. You have no right to inflation free currency. It is not a tax. You are not entitled to store your wealth in any particular form of currency, especially one created and disseminated by a third party. You have no right to keep your wealth in the form of US dollars or any other currency. If you want to protect against inflation, store your wealth in a different asset. Or if you want a currency, then enter into a contract with a private bank which will issue you scrip and contract never to inflate it.

      [–]fukelbuddy 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (10子コメント)

      Holy shit.. I thought I was a libertarian. Until I saw this post. Do you guys even know what monetary policy is? Seeing this post is truly terrifying.

      [–]nsureshkancap 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      ITT: "libertarians" supporting one of the biggest centralized authority in the world.

      [–]idonthaveacoolname13 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Today I came to r/libertarian where shills defended Janet Yellen and the Fed.

      [–]qbz 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      I'm not sure about all the claims made in the image but the chairman of the federal reserve is one of the most powerful people in the world

      [–]MapleSyrupAlliancePhilosophical Libertarian 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (3子コメント)

      Since the US currency isn't backed by gold or...anything? what would happen if we back it again?

      [–]RaulphlaunPocahontas 2020 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

      The economy would suffer a massive depression, but a needed one. It would be fair again. The ones that benefit the most with the Fed are governments and banks. They get the newly created money first. As it trickles down through the economy business without this benefit have to make the corrections to survive. When my bills come due I can't get a loan from the Fed to pay them off.

      [–]MapleSyrupAlliancePhilosophical Libertarian 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      That's what I was afraid of. It seems like the US is at a point where it has to fail to start moving forward again

      [–]OJSamson 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      but a needed one

      repent your consumerist sins.

      [–]honestMagicfan 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      And perpetuated the myth of a fully recovered economy

      [–]libbylibertarianlibertarian party 21 ポイント22 ポイント  (34子コメント)

      Top 10 reasons to end the not even remotely federal reserve:

      1. The Federal Reserve Has Far Too Much Power to Control Our Economy. The Federal Reserve Chairman has the power to dramatically impact our economy at a drop of the hat. The central bank completely controls and determines the money supply. It is permitted to create as much money as it wants out of thin air with no restrictions. This is the antithetical to the principles that America was founded on. Our Founding Fathers would be outraged that one centralized institution has unchecked and unprecedented power to control the economy and thus our lives.

      2. The Federal Reserve Has Significantly Devalued Our Currency.
        The laws of supply and demand apply to money. The more dollars we have in the circulation, the less the currency is worth. Our money supply has rapidly increased over the past century due to the Federal Reserve printing massive amounts of money like there is no tomorrow. This is what will almost inevitably happen when a quasi-governmental entity can simply print more money to its heart’s content. Since the Federal Reserve came into existence in 1913, the dollar has lost over 95 percent of its value. Today’s dollar is worth less than a nickel compared to the pre-1913 dollar.

      3. The Federal Reserve Hurts the Poor and Middle Class the Most.
        Our hard-earned money is essentially stolen through a hidden inflation tax. Inflation is the increase in the supply of money and credit. It is often wrongly defined as the general rise in the price of goods and services. But higher prices are actually a direct consequence of inflation since increasing the supply of money decreases the purchasing power of the dollar. Inflation hurts the poor most since they have less disposable income. Consumers with low disposable incomes will be negatively impacted by higher prices for food and clothing.

      4. The Federal Reserve is Run By Unelected and Unaccountable Bureaucrats. The Board of Governors at the Federal Reserve are not directly elected by the American people. This means that those who run the Federal Reserve are unaccountable to the people. The seven members of the Board ultimately decide the price or purchasing power of our money. That kind of central planning would never exist in a true free market economy.

      5. The Federal Reserve Has Made Our Economy Less Stable. The Federal Reserve has brought us endless boom-and-bust cycles. The U.S. economy was much more stable before the Federal Reserve came into existence. It bears significant responsibility for every financial crisis over the past century including the Great Depression, the stagflation of the 1970s and recent economic meltdown. The Austrian Business Cycle Theory explains why we see such wide fluctuations in the economy. The theory states that a false boom occurs when the Federal Reserve lowers interest rates below the market rate which increases the supply of money. Artificially low credit cost sends out misleading economic signals to producers. They are inclined to respond by greatly expanding their production around the same time. In retrospect, these investment decisions called malinvestments are seen as a bad allocation of resources. Malinvestments will lead to wasted capital and economic losses. The expansion of credit cannot continue permanently which means that inevitable bust will follow a false boom created by the Federal Reserve.

      6. The Federal Reserve is Far Too Secretive. The central bank severely lacks transparency. Throughout its 100-year history, it has always operated under a veil of secrecy. The Federal Reserve has never been fully audited by any outside source. Our elected representatives in Congress have very little oversight over the central bank. It has continually resisted any kind of congressional oversight claiming that it would endanger its “independence.” A comprehensive audit of the Federal Reserve would not harm its so-called independence. It would only expose how the Federal Reserve has been manipulating our currency behind closed doors. And Ben Bernanke surely doesn’t want that to happen.

      7. The Federal Reserve Benefits Special Interests. The policies of the Federal Reserve hurt the average American. It benefits the privileged few at the expense of the rest of us. The Federal Reserve erodes most Americans’ standard of living while enriching well-connected elites. The central bank serves big spending politicians, big bankers and their friends. Special interests receive access to money and credit before the harmful inflationary effects impact the entire economy. This is why high power lobbyists protect and defend the existence of the Federal Reserve.

      8. The Federal Reserve is Unconstitutional. The Constitution makes no mention of a central bank. While there have been historical debates on the constitutionality of a central bank, I see no justification for the argument that the Federal Reserve is constitutional. The federal government only has about thirty enumerated powers delegated to it in the Constitution. The power to create a central bank is not explicitly granted to the federal government in our founding document. Due to my strict interpretation of the Constitution, I find the Federal Reserve to clearly violate the Constitution.

      9. The Federal Reserve Routinely Bails Out Big Banks. The Federal Reserve acts as the lender of last resort. The Federal Reserve was ordered through a Freedom of Information Act request to release 28,000 pages of documents in March 2011. The documents exposed that one of the largest recipients of the Federal Reserve’s money was foreign banks during the 2008 economic meltdown. The top foreign banks that received money were the Brussells and Paris based Dexia SA, the Dublin based Depfa Bank Plc, the Bank of China and Arab Banking Corp., according to Campaign for Liberty.

      In July 2011, due to a provision under the misguided Dodd-Frank financial overhaul law, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) conducted a one-time, watered-down audit of the Federal Reserve. The GAO investigators were not allowed to view most of the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy decisions including discount window lending, open-market operations and details on its transactions with foreign governments and banks. This first ever audit of the Federal Reserve revealed $16 trillion in secret bailouts to corporations and banks around the world in less than three years. These bailouts happened without a single vote taking place in any chamber of Congress.

      (10) The Federal Reserve Encourages Deficit Spending. The Federal Reserve is largely responsible for the out-of-control spending by Congress. The federal government can only obtain money through taxation, printing or borrowing money. Printing money has become the federal government’s preferred method. This is also the most destructive method since the federal government is able to simply print more money as needed to finance its drunken spending spree. It has become a never-ending cycle of spending and printing more money. Voters can put pressure on their representatives to halt politically unpopular tax hikes and lenders could stop loaning money to the U.S. government. But it’s fast and easy for the Federal Reserve to print more money at a whim.

      http://www.freedomworks.org/content/top-10-reasons-end-federal-reserve

      Now, how to replace it? Gold standard? How about pegging our currency to a basket of commodities, rather than just gold? Congress needs to reclaim it's power to print and coin money, and regulate the value thereof. As scary as that sounds, it is more scary to have our economy under the control of nameless unelected private individuals. At the very least, we can hold Congress to account. There is simply no way to do that with the federal reserve.

      [–]hayekian_zoidberg 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

      The US has had several central banks in its time and even one while the founding fathers were alive. Let's stop acting like the FF we're some monolithic group of thinkers that agreed with anything libertarian. Sure, Jefferson would be aghast at the idea of the Fed but Hamilton would be beside himself.

      [–]_stee 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Yes and all other 4 were stopped because the fathers knew how destructive they were. The current central bank was the one that has survived and needs to be taken out as well.

      [–]libbylibertarianlibertarian party 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      And the majority of the founders were against it. At the end of the day a Constitutional Republic cannot survive as such when you have unelected bankers holding so much sway over our decision making.

      [–]General_Landry -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (19子コメント)

      Your argument falls apart when you say that the US Economy was more stable without the FED. Before the FED, we had the Great Depression. It was one HUGE event of economic decline. After the FED, we've had more ups and downs, correct, but they are much softer in impact. The natural economic cycle is made smoother. There will always be ups and downs in the economy, no matter what it's just how it goes. It expands and contracts naturally.

      Also you solution of giving the power to Congress is MUCH worse. Congress in its current form can't get shit done. It will take forever to change monetary policy. If you even took 1 semester of Econ in college you would know that monetary policy is supposed to be able to react to the market quickly, unlike fiscal policy. Giving Monetary policy to Congress will slow our response to potential market collapses.

      [–]libbylibertarianlibertarian party 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (18子コメント)

      Your argument falls apart when you say that the US Economy was more stable without the FED. Before the FED, we had the Great Depression.

      Please tell me you are kidding /u/General_Landry. The fed was created in 1913. The Great Depression happened in 1929. The fed has been responsible for every boom and bust since its inception, and yes that includes the Great Depression. Still in love with the fed?

      [–]Thewhiterabbit7 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (9子コメント)

      https://youtu.be/IJxA7NEn2jc

      This was posted in /r/ronpaul the other day. It is amazing to me that the left defends the Fed. Noam Chomsky who is a distinguished socialist says that it is necessary & hates capitalism all the while not even realizing the fed is the one bailing out the banks with trillions of dollars causing disparity in wealth to grow even larger. The irony is painful.

      [–]staticjacketMake r/libertarian Principled Again[S] 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (1子コメント)

      Chomsky <3's the fed? I think the only ideas I agree with Chomsky on are war, but I'm sure he blames capitalism for that too, so I probably don't agree with him as much as I think.

      [–]FreshAsBasil 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (3子コメント)

      What the fuck is this post?? Anyone with a high school education in economics knows that this is completely and utterly false, all the fed does is implement monetary policies to manage inflation. Stop trying to radicalize right wingers into altrighters by trying to turn their anger towards the establishment

      [–]sny321 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

      To be fair this is r/libertarian is it that suprising

      [–]NimbleCentipod 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      I mean we kind of already want to abolish the FED and replace it with nothing.

      [–]AustinDavis9393 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      But the Fed prints money for wall street! /s

      Seriously though, the rhetoric is strong with this post. People, learn what monetary vs fiscal policy is and the difference between the Fed and treasury.

      [–]werftedstite 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      This sub has turned to shit

      [–]PandaK00sh 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      How much does a position like hers earn in annual salary?

      [–]MC_ReaganLil' Don and the White House Boyz 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      That's a female!?

      [–]sgtjoe 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      I don't agree with libertarian views 90% of the time, but the federal reserve is one of the greatest crimes the world has seen so far.

      [–]Karl___Marx 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (3子コメント)

      OP, currency is debt. Look at two charts. Money supply and national debt.

      http://www.shadowstats.com/imgs/2013/819/image004.gif

      It doesn't matter if you have a "gold" standard

      [–]TakeOffYourMaskFriedmanite/Hayekian 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

      Anti-Fed zealots make libertarians look crazy, IMO.

      [–]NimbleCentipod 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Austrian Business Cycle Theory. We want market to set interest rates and have sound money. Some (like myself) want the denationalize the monetary system.

      [–]Rindanlibertarian party 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      I feel dumber for having seen that. You don't inflate away your savings and increase debt with interest rates. You can inflate away savings and debt, or you can maintain savings and debt, or increase savings and debt. The two go together, at least at the level of Fed interest rates. You can complain about one of those things, but not both.

      [–]jacob_pakman 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      This is why libertarians can't have nice things.

      [–]Razorray21 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      "Ron Paul has my face taped to a dart board"

      [–]HanC0190 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Please end the fed, I stand to benefit a lot from the collapse of monetary system.

      [–]Codroy 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      What's with the picture of Newt Gingrich?

      [–]anonymau5 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Well, she has raised the rates so we'll see how that goes?

      [–]DemiseofReality 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      She took over operations of a drug treatment center which treats unruly/withdrawn patients with injections of heroine.

      [–]CutlassSupremoancap 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      I think the Fed's primary goal is to keep equities steadily rising. Every decade or so they over-do it and the stock market tanks. All the other metrics they clame to defend (employment, targeted inflation rate, etc.) are BS. They exist to give Wallstreet access to easy, sometimes free money.

      [–]MeLlamoBenjamin 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Nobody forces people to take on debt, except when the government takes on debt and uses you as taxpaying collateral. But they do incentivize the taking-on of debt. Ultimately that choice is yours. If you run up 10k on a credit card to get a curved HDTV because those low interest rates were just too tantalizing, that's on you.

      [–]qemist 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Yellen's soft money policies have been of a piece with every other chair's since Volcker.