"Muh Federal Reserve!"

Post Reply New Topic

Does anyone here know why so many people on the internet blame the Federal Reserve System for everything? I don't see many federal reserve nuts on this site (thank goodness) but I often see these conspiracy theories on other sites. Is it just because the Fed was run by a Jew for a while? ... because these conspiracy theories persist even though the current fed chairman isn't Jewish.

Noam Chomsky's Thoughts on This
VVV


Reality Check: There is no "Illuminati". The "New World Order" is an abstract concept, not an organisation. If we were to take away the Federal Reserve Bank, corporations would still have the ability to fund corporatist candidates. This would put us right back where we started.

The government needs to regulate the business cycle because the corporations sure as Hell won't regulate themselves. When the super-rich create a depression with their shenanigans, they stay rich. It is the middle and lower classes that suffer. The super-rich have no rational reason to maintain economic stability, since they can always count on a bailout anyway. Let's not forget about all of the rich people who stayed rich during the Great Depression.

All of these dumb conspiracy theories poison online alternative discourse by drowning out actual political science. I hate all of this "End the Fed." drivel. Campaign finance regulation is the key. The Fed is a distraction.

America has a historically...shaken trust in central banking. There were two (I believe?) central banks between the founding and the current federal reserve, both were killed by congress.

The federal reserve you know today has only existed since 1913. The main argument against it are that is arguably overarching government power, and not effective power at that (see Great Depression, 1970's crash, dotcom bubble, 2008 recession for examples). The argument is for the first 150 years of the U.S we didn't need a central bank, and actually "killed the bank" (per Andrew Jackson), so we shouldn't need one now. Obviously there's various counterarguments re: modern world trade and global economies.

There's some nutjobs but most people who hold 'conspiracy' theories about the federal reserve just have a more conservative view of government, which is fine. I for one value my FDIC insured bank accounts so I'm okay with having a central bank.

It is true that America didn't always have a central bank, but those were brutal times.

Fun Fact: When abolishing slavery was a popular topic in the years leading up to the Civil War, one of the most common counter-arguments was "Well ... is the wage labor of the northern states any better?" Radical socialism was very common all over the west around this time because the out-of-control capitalism was so horrifying.

Many people consider the term "wage slavery" to be absurd nowadays. If you want to understand why the term was created, you have to understand the historical epoch that created it. Those were not good times.



The Federal Reserve System stabilises an economy which had previously been horrible. I don't see how that "conservative" view of the government is "fine".

Overall, what conservatives call "conservative economics" is deadly. It's hard to respect a system which is responsible for creating so much despair and agony. Compare this to the progressive economic plans which save hundreds of lives every year.

Overall, conservatism is a bunch of stuff that sounds nice on the surface, but falls apart when you think about it. "Free-Market capitalism" can, ironically, lead to an odd sort of slavery. The concept of gun rights becomes virulent when the government decides to do absolutely nothing to prevent gun violence. Patriotism can very easily stand in the way of universal human rights. The concept of "Christian values" is misleading, as most politicians who talk about Christian values ignore the most of the New Testament.

That's all I have to say about that.

I don't get why right-wingers think the 19th century was such a happy time. It was bloody awful. It's also pretty obnoxious to turn around and blame a failed solution (central banks) as a cause of crisis. Economic crisis and depressions existed before the invention of central banks. There's simply less memory of their severity before the 20th century. Fractional reserve banking always existed in some form as well. Outlawing it merely created black markets... same as attempt to outlaw usury.

No one believes the 19th century was a happy time compared to today they just accept it was a time of great advancement.

I have heard all these rumours of the fed being owned by the Rothschilds which are plainly idiotic.

Is the federal reserve the organisation that is responsible for printing money? Deflation is a bad thing as it devalues peoples already existing money and forces people to risk their money by investing it even as going as far as people paying pension funds huge sums of money for very little.

There are actually quite a few right-wingers who do see the Nineteenth Century as a sort of golden age.

In what context? It was a golden age for progress much better than the 18th century.

It is true that the Rothschilds are responsible for some horrible things. For example, they were involved in the creation of both Rhodesia and modern Israel. They are also guilty of predatory banking tactics.

That being said, most of the conspiracy theories regarding the Rothschilds single them out for being Jewish ... ignoring all the bad things that non-Jewish merchants have done with their power.

Lots of an-caps will look back at the 19th century as some sort of golden age because of the lack of financial restrictions.



It was a golden age of progress for the bourgeoisie, not the lower classes.

The lower classes have advanced quite a bit since then, though we still have plenty of work to do.

It absolutely was a time of advancement for the lower classes. The liberalisation of the economy was a great thing. Regulations back then were blatantly to suppress competition and favour those who were politically connected.

That advancement wasn’t due to capitalism alone. It was due to technology.

I'm honestly not sure if capitalism contributed to human advancement at all.

Capitalism emerged when the old feudal system broke down. The old feudal system had a merchant class. When feudalism broke down, the merchant class became the new upper class, and the peasants were forced to become industrial workers.

In other words, the birth of capitalism was just the replacement of one oppressive power structure with another.

Technological growth probably led to the birth of capitalism, not the other way around.

The technological advancement was due to capitalism.

The old system broke down because of capitalism. The peasants became not only wealthier but also more free due to capitalism.

Why would people invest time and money into technological advancement if not for personal gain?

The Fed has it's flaws, but I think the claim that replacing it with a return to the Gold Standard would create a stronger stable economy is exaggerated.

I even say this as a former Ron Paul supporter. I liked Ron a lot for his foreign policy stance and I think it's unfortunate his campaign latched onto this issue. I think his suggestion to 'Audit' the Fed was a fair one, but he also continued to speak about sound currency backed by Gold or other precious metals. I sometimes wonder if Ron Paul could have been a more successful candidate without this brand of economics.