TED Conversations

Danger Lampost

Futurist & Technology Consultant,

TEDCRED 20+

This conversation is closed.

Should the Federal Reserve System be under the control of our elected officials?

According to the United States Federal Reserve System's Board of Governors, the Federal Reserve System "is considered an independent central bank because its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by the Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms." [Source: http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_14986.htm]

Poll after poll says significant majorities of Americans want to either abolish or open up the U.S. Federal Reserve to public review. [One example: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-09/more-than-half-of-americans-want-fed-reined-in-or-abolished.html.] Since their policy has such a significant impact on all of us (even world wide) , and since the power to control our currency explicitly rests with the Federal Government, you would think Congress could change this if it were not tied up in knots such as it is.

Would anyone - could anyone - argue against putting the Fed under control of our elected officials?

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Apr 9 2013: It would be a match made in Hell. The FR has five objectives; 1) Control competition in banking. 2) Establish and maintain a franchise (from Congress) to create paper money out of nothing for purposes of lending at interest. 3) Control cash reserves of all banks as a way to create currency drains and bank runs to be used to eliminate undesirable competetiors (the definition of a cartel). 4) Get taxpayers to cover the inevitable, massive, losses. 5) Convince Congress that the Cartel (FR) exists for the public good. The FR is a cartel opposed to the public interest. It is the supreme instrument of usury. It generates the most unfair tax of all, inflation. It encourages war and destabilizes economies. It is an instrument of Socialism. My answer is NO! The FR should be disenfranchised and abandoned with prejudice. Read The Creature From Jekyll Island, by Ed Griffin.
    • thumb
      Apr 9 2013: Thanks for your reply - I do agree with what you've said. It's interesting to compare your 5 objectives with the so-called "dual mandate" of the Federal Reserve, though one of the duties - to minimize unemployment - may be eliminated soon in Congress, although we'll see.

      Would you propose that we have a central bank at all, and if so, would it be a public private or public institution? Is it the concept of a central bank you have issue with, or with our particular implementation of it?
      • thumb
        Apr 9 2013: No Central Bank! Never! Listen to the words of Pres. Carter's top economic bureaucrat: QUOTE: "I suggest a radical alternative scheme for the next century: the creation of a common currencyfor all the industrial democracies, with a common monetary policy and a joint Bank of Issue to determine that monetary policy. . . ". - Richard N. Cooper,Fall 1984. This is all part of the same plan which drives the Council On Foreign Relations (CFR). It is a plan to make an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it completely so we can all live live peaceful, obedient lives under one world government.
        • thumb
          Apr 9 2013: Query: if the singular world government successfully achieves the proper aims of government, what is the problem with such a development?

          Even if it does not, what is it about a singular world government that is inherently more hostile to the collective welfare? I see no reason not to extrapolate the problems within each country to the global scale. Foreign countries have not historically played a role in protecting domestic freedoms on any ideological basis.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.