Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Is the National Reserve Act Romney's cup of tea? I believe it is, critique and comment on this.

rated by 0 users
This post has 3 Replies | 1 Follower

Not Ranked
Posts 814
Points 16,290
No2statism Posted: Thu, Oct 25 2012 2:22 AM

The Fed has been tried (3 times under the Federalist Party's Constitution), the Van Burenian/Jacksonian monetary system has been tried, the Jeffersonian (competing currencies) system has been tried twice (under the Articles of Confederation in which it was to be inherently stable, again when he repealed the first silver standard and it didn't even last a full decade because Madison granted the govt too many powers), and the greenback system has been tried.  The greenback system installed by Lincoln is what the Fed is under Bernanke.

All of that said, I believe that the none of them are going to be tried again. Rather, I believe that since Romney is a Rockefeller Republican and since he is also a National Socialist, he will try the "National Reserve Act" which was the opposite of what the last of the quasi-Jeffersonians wanted, so the Federal Reserve which actually is federalist (it shares power between the banks, the govt and the govt shares power with the Board of Governors, while being somewhat decentralized) was created as a compromise, but it is an imaginary reserve.

The Federal Reserve became more and more like pure greenbackism which was only tried under Lincoln. I don't think it will be tried again after Ben Bernanke inadvertantly shows what a failure it is.

I think it will happen because Romney wants to regulate the hell out of everything, he wants to start a True banking aristocracy (only the biggest banks will exist when they're granted a true monopoly on money creation), because of popular discontent with the Fed, and because the Fed is somewhat international and Romney wants to do away with globalism (he wants to bind half the world, then he wants to pit them against the other half even though that's not mathematically possible). The Fed can't be regulated enough for Romney so I'm sure he'd want something that only Congress can regulate and that could only be done via the National Reserve Act. Finally, the National Reserve Act would make it so the govt couldn't have a deficit or it would at least wipe out the existing federal debt because the FRN would be gone.  There really wouldn't be any currency competition as Dr. Paul wanted (Romney might think he was doing him a favor though), because Congress would be regulating the banks directly rather than sharing power with a Federal Reserve board of governors which in turn shares power with the 12 Regional banks.

The Democrats tried to stop the National Reserve Act which was meant to be of, by, and exclusively for the Old Money Elite (only Anglicans would've been allowed into the banking system under the National Reserve Act as the House of Morgan would've won out immediately while the Fed continued the battle between the House of Morgan and the House of Rockefeller), but the Fed will come to an end and be replaced by something much worse.

If Dr. Paul had known what we were getting into back in 1975, then I don't believe he would've bothered running for Congress.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,922
Points 79,590
Autolykos replied on Thu, Oct 25 2012 12:53 PM

First off, I don't think Romney is anti-globalization/globalism. Those words are ways of referring to the near-global hegemony enjoyed by the United States while masking that it's a hegemony at all. Therein lies their advantage for those who seek to maintain (if not enhance) that hegemony.

Second, I do agree with you that the most likely outcome of popular anti-Fed sentiment is an outright nationalization of the banking system. I think the majority of people opposed to the Fed are in favor of such a banking nationalization and would thus welcome it with open arms. What at least many of them don't understand is that this would give the government even more power. Some of them, though, probably think that itself would be a good thing, because they see "the bankers" as being more powerful than the government, which they identify (foolishly IMO) with "the people".

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 814
Points 16,290

Thank you, my friend forever: )

When I think of nationalization of the banking system though, I think of the National Reserve Act.  The Fed is already pretty pure greenbackist.  Bernanke is just dumping money everywhere and the only difference Romney could make is "making it official" and I see him as more of a regulator.  He could also say he established competing currencies and wiped the debt off if he went with the National Reserve Act.  That's the only monetary/banking system that has never been established, at least by the U.S. gov.

 

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 814
Points 16,290
No2statism replied on Fri, Oct 26 2012 11:56 AM

There is no way of knowing for sure, but why wouldn't Romney support ressurecting the National Reserve Act or why would he?

I just have severe difficulty seeing a return to greenbackism because we already have that under Ben Bernanke.  The National Reserve Act as written by Sen. Aldrich never saw the light of day but I think it is something to worry about.

Also, do you think that the national reserve act would be worse than Bernanke's fed, equally harmful, or about the same?

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (4 items) | RSS