Regulating the Fed

“A number of the legislative proposals being circulated would
significantly reduce the capacity of the Federal Reserve to
perform its core functions,” the Fed chairman said in a
commentary in today’s Washington Post. The measures
“would seriously impair the prospects for economic and
financial stability in the U.S.”

Is this a joke of some kind? The dollar has lost over 95%
of its purchasing power since the Fed took over in 1913 and
that somehow shows stability? Bernanke is a kook or liar of
the first class.
This little excerpt from the Market Oracle's Robert Bradshaw's exposé
will help understand why so many want the Fed abolished.
"In theory, the Fed was established to stabilize the economy,
smooth out the business cycle, manage a healthy, sustainable
growth rate, and maintain stable prices. In fact, it failed
dismally. It contributed to 19 US recessions (including the
Great Depression) and significantly to the following equity
market declines that accompanied them as measured by the
Dow or S & P 500 average; - 40.1% (Dow) from 1916 - 1917;
- 46.6% (Dow) from 1919 - 1921; the 1929 (Dow) crash in two
stages - 47.9% in 1929 followed by a strong, temporary rebound and
then - 86%; -89% peak to trough total from October 1929 to July 1932;
- 49.1% (Dow) from 1937 - 1938; - 40.4% (Dow) from 1939 - 1942;
- 25.3% (S & P) from 1946 - 1947; - 19.8% (S & P) in 1957;
- 26.8% (S & P) from 1961 - 1962; - 19.3% (S & P) in 1966;
- 32.7% (S & P) from 1968 - 1970; - 45.1% (S & P) from 1973 - 1974;
- 20.2% (S & P) from 1980 - 1982; - 32.9% (S & P) in 1987;
- 19.2% (S & P) in 1990; - 18.8% (S & P) in 1998;
- 49.1% (S & P) from 2000 - 2002; and - about 50% (S & P)
and counting (excluding a bear market rebound) from October 2007."
Read his entire, very excellent article on the website at
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article8909.html which I strongly
recommmend you do soon before the article disappears.
Remember all the support for a Federal Reserve Systems resulted
from market "panics" that "had to be controlled". Later, the
powers that be decided that the word "panic" was too strong so
they substituted the word "depression". The idea was to keep
the public from "panic". Later, the same public policy makers
decided that the word "depression" was now too strong so it was
time to use a less offensive word and they chose "recession".
That's rich isn't it? What it really means is the conditions
of "recession" we now have used to be called a "panic".

The only thing controlling the Fed would impair is the banksters
ability to earn interest on money they create from thin air.

Time to end the Fed and print currency without debt.
Say, "No!" to interest on circulating currency.

Gold has the dollar on the ropes

Are you watching gold? If not, you should be. It appears to

be reflecting the fantastic flood of dollars created by our

Federal Reserve. Normally, people would say it was created

by our empty suit President, but, to be fair, none of our

Presidents have had any control over the Federal Reserve...ever.
That means that we cannot fairly blame them for rotten monetary

policy. None of our Presidents (including Reagan and possibly

excluding JFK) have even attempted to control our central bank.

As long as the government borrows money into existence, there

is no hope of paying the National Debt; mainly because the money

for interest isn't created and thus, the debt is perpetual.
Of course, we could print United States Notes, without borrowing

them (JFK did but didn't live to enjoy the benefits of that move)

and pay them to the Federal Reserve System to retire their Federal

Reserve Notes. We could use the US Notes to pay the interest and

end the debt cycle. The problem with that is that the inflation tax

on us would no longer be hidden and politicians are nothing if not

sneaky about how they take money from us. Overt taxation for all

the stupid stuff our government would be so unpopular that "We the
People" would vote all the bums out. We probably should anyway

just to be safe. No matter what we do as a country, it appears that

sometime the market will reflect the diminishing value of the dollar.

In that case, if you have gold and silver, the price will go up and you

will be able to pay off debt in cheaper dollars (after paying taxes on

your GAIN(?)) and you may benefit somewhat in that scenario.

BUT...what will happen if we experience a credit contraction?

VISA made an announcement some time ago that they may have to
write off almost $ 1 trillion to bad debt. WOW! Since our currency is

backed by debt (seems silly doesn't it?) that means a LOT of money

will disappear!! That means DEFLATIONARY(!) pressure. Does

that mean I'm EXPECTING deflation? Actually, no. I think it's possible

as long as currencies are manipulated but when you look at the

overspending ALL governments are doing, it seems much more likely

that we are in for a round of incredible inflation. Hang on to any

assetsyou have that are not denominated in dollars (bonds are

probablythe absolute worst). Gold is still a monetary metal despite

what thecentral banks the world over have tried to do to demonetize it.

Silver is a close second and actually may increase at a faster rate

than gold. In 1687, the silver to gold ratio was 14.94 ounces of silver

to one ounce of gold. It gradually rose all the way up to 16.25 ounces

of silver to one of gold in 1813 and fell back to 15.92 by 1873.

This is from history of the London Mint. Gold was demonetized in

England in 1874 and the ratio went to 23.72 to one by 1892.

However, history shows us that the ratio is generally around

15.5 silver to one of gold. Right now the ratio is 64.27 ounces of

silver to one ounce of gold!! Let's be daring and say it will get

to 25 to 1. That means we're looking at a price of silver of over

$46 per ounce. Either gold is overpriced (NOT!) or silver is

underpriced (YEP!). Either way, silver is the way to go for now,

unless you have so much money that the amount of silver you

will purchase will be hard to store and/or transport. Then move to gold.