Throwing Down the Energy Gauntlet

Agreed. In my circles, the Fed is heavily viewed as the antithesis to the American dream.

Chris started me reading on the Fed - it is another puzzel. What do you mean by "antithesis to the American dream"? It seems to be "as one would expect" in the moors of "free enterprise".

It is always possible to go back to using shells and glass beads. The Fed or it's exact equivalent will always be there.

Want political control over it? Right now Obama would own it then?

In the interests of brevity...

The Fed is essentially a coalition of the top financial movers and shakers and the politicians involved in their oversight. Their history is to manipulate the money supply to "their" advantage, which works out to the disadvantage of the small business person/entrepreneur. Ie, "the antithesis to the American dream".

Witness the recent bailouts: virtually no money made it to the lower business ranks, only to those who abused the financial markets and were at risk of losing their influence and control.

They also directly control US energy policy (through manipulation of funds) and, if you're a conspiracy theorist, are working towards a one world order.

Hooker

So it's just the same as the old Soviet regime running on elitism, "rank" and backscratching?

Ed Griffin calls it Collectivism.

I repeat -

It is always possible to go back to using shells and glass beads. The Fed or it's exact equivalent will always be there.

Want political control over it? Right now Obama would own it then?

"It is always possible to go back to using shells and glass beads. The Fed or it's exact equivalent will always be there."

I disagree. I must. To agree that we must eternally be under the thumb of Usury Inc., would be terribly fatalistic and unimaginitive to me. So far I thought that it was simply that Americans didn't know about the system... but perhaps your attitude suggest a different reason...

Money represents value, which as often as not, represents our hard labour plus natures bounty. To think that we need someone to vacuum up the annual growth from us is, to me, ludicrous. I for one, would like to keep a bit more of (not all) the fruits of my labour, and I can decide who I might wish to give it to, and which civil projects I wish to support. Inflation is a hidden tax.

Chris

We know the system quite well I expect Chris. Have you pointed out anything new or earth shaking? If so I missed it.

Are we going back to a gold standard or some such thing? No!

Sarcastic comment deleted!

I am not at all sure what you and others propose should run large economies.

Russ

2 things;

1. As I said before, this is a privately owned bank, not responsible to the people or congress. sooo... make it owned by the people, and responsible to congress.
2. remove the inflation aspect. This exists to stimulate growth (good) It also exists to steal the growth. (bad) There is simply no need for it at all. Growth will occur by the desire of the people to have a more abundant life. Money supply will be equal to (not greater than) the output of the nation.

Chris

The first step should probably be to define "run". That is, right after someone shows me where it says the Feds are allowed to even meddle in the economy.

While keeping in mind that about 30% of the US economy, in terms of GNP, is now a direct result of Federal Gov't transactions. If the Feds kept their business to Constitutional limits the GNP would be considerably smaller (though still the largest in the world).

Hooker

Disclaimer - I didn't take the time to look up the 30% figure. It's really immaterial except for the fact that the Feds are into way too much.

Al Gore certainly threw down the gauntlet.

One good place to start would be to have the price of fossil fuels more accurately reflect their cost. In our current situation it is obvious that a great deal of our defense budget goes to keeping the supply lines open. Ideally the solution would be to put a significant tax on these fuels, so that the cost of these military operations is included in the pump price. A second benefit would be that alternative energy technology would not have to compete against artificially low petroleum prices. A third benefit would be that the higher taxes would encourage efficiency and conservation. This would also reduce our balance of payments deficit which (IMHO) is a root cause of our current economic problems.

This would unfortunately have a disproportional impact on low wage workers who must travel long distances to work in old beaters with poor gas mileage, and most solutions I can think of would involve jiggering the income tax system. This would require a level of common sense and decency from our politicians (of all stripes) which is currently in very short supply. However, for taxpayers as a whole (individual and business) the impact should be close to nil: they are already paying for the defense budget through the income tax (and currency devaluation) so for them increase in fuel taxes could be offset by a reduction in income taxes.

Reportedly the presidential commission on deficit reduction is set to recommend a 15 cent increase in the gasoline tax. This would be a small step in the right direction on a journey we should have started decades ago.