Topic: Government Regulation
The Real Danger of the Democrats The Federal Reserve under attack by Washingtonby Christopher Espinal
(Conservative)
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Bill Clinton was an awesome president. He tried his best to balance budgets, mandate welfare reform, and cut irresponsible spending. Sure he shifted money around and allocated tax dollars and china's loans to other cute little mal-developed bureaucracies.
Some conservatives who have respect for this man credit him with providing an additional tax cut to Reagan's revolution. Clinton successfully implemented free trade agreements with China. Consumer prices all over the country fell because we allowed the Chinese, who has an absolute advantage on low skilled labor, to produce and trade with the US.
People are constantly complaining about trade deficits and jobs going overseas. Well, we allowed that to happen for a fine cause: cheaper products. Our standard of living continues to rise, and it will continue to rise. Higher levels of education are in demand. All of those annoying commercials for trade schools signal to me that a significant market exists to improve American human capital. Thus, these trade proposals that Bill Clinton made realities cut consumer prices and developed a national incentive for improving education.
No wonder why former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan called Clinton "the best Republican president we had in a while."
The Fed to be Hijacked
Or, did Bill Clinton have these very responsible and conservative ideas in action because he had to deal with a Republican controlled congress?
However, despite all of these fine achievements the one that makes me very skeptical was his desire to take monetary policy under his wing; quite like Hugo Chavez did in Venezuela after amending the constitution for complete control.
It's happening again today! Democratic Senators, especially Chris Dodd, are trying to hold Randall Kroszner from gaining a 14 year office term with the Federal Reserve. Kroszner is a very free market oriented economist at the University of Chicago, who was offered an extended long term stay. Democrats are saying that Kroszner, who heads FED policy on the sub-prime mortgage crisis, has failed to curb its effects "bailing out the poor."Actually, they would rather have an insider to garner control over monetary policy. It's the right time for them since the Democrats have an excellent chance of winning in the general election.
On the Fed
Why would this be disastrous? The Federal Reserve in the United States is quite distinct from that of the rest of the world. Our central bank has a mind of its own. In other words, the FED doesn't have to accommodate Federal Government policy. Our goals are to target 2% inflation per year.
Now, if Democrats gain control, they would tradeoff inflation for employment, calling employment more important than the purchasing power of the dollar. In matter of fact, having such power under the wing of big spenders would lead to a greater incentive for spending. If the FED doesn't remain an independent organization and comes under the control of people who don't understand economics, like 99.9% of Washington D.C., that would cause some of the greatest problems in US history.
High rates of inflation would hurt the value of our bonds to foreigners. Milton Friedman warned on Charlie Rose that the only thing that would cause foreigners to halt investment in the most politically stable nation in the world is bad inflationary policy!
Can we afford to pay 4 Trillion dollars to China and Japan? Nope.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 3 thumbs so far
2008 Christopher Espinal, all rights reserved.
Published: Sunday, February 3, 2008
Last modified: Sunday, February 3, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of Christopher Espinal only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Christopher Espinal is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Obama along with Clinton are both socialist... We are becoming the USSR or at least USSR light... or I can't believe it's not the USSR... Most of the Republicans and All of the Dems want big government..... if you love freedom and independent thought you would be wise to vote for Ron Paul
I think the evidence is enormously strong that democratically elected governments need to have greater control over their national currencies, not less. The "independence" of a privately owned central bank means economic policies which benefit the private bank's shareholders, rather than the people of the nation. There is simply overwhelming evidence to support this view. Without democratic control of national currency, via democratically elected bodies such as Congress, sovereignty becomes an impossibility. We need to be dealing with reality here, not ideology. Central banks that are privately owned - that is, controlled by large corporations or small groups of financial elites - tend to damage national economies while benefiting the financial elite, and more critically, undermine all ability of democratic governments to hold real power on behalf of the people, giving power to the bankers and corporations, and removing effective power from parliament or Congress. Allowing private empires, such as those who control the FED, to "manage" the nation's money is pretty much letting the wolves guard the hen house. Democratically elected governments have the right, the mandate and the power to print and control the nation’s currency. To forgo this right and pass this power to highly concentrated financial dynasties, is both unwise and highly dangerous.
Posted By: Christopher Espinal
Date: 2008-02-04 16:11:19
Firstly, please stop posting all of this garbage by conspiracy theorists who are half knowledged on issues of monetary policy.
Tell me, not what non-economists like Noam Chomsky who don't understand or ever intend to understand monetary policy, but what economists who developed the system have to say about the FED. Debate those points.
Oh yeah, they may be way too complex for people like you or Chomsky, or some socialist who complains about corporations having too much equity to invest. I'm not against socialism, but I'm against the zealots who don't understand capitalism or markets. I'm also against these pro-gold fools who don't understand monetary policy and how it benefited the growth of the United States.
I'd rather hear what Hayek and Rothbard have to say than those other fools you quote.
Don't tell me you have read Keynes or Friedman and debunked them yourself. Schumpeter: The first thing man will do for his ideologies is lie.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 Christopher Espinal, all rights reserved.