11 votes

'End The Fed' Poem: I Wrote It!

Oversimplified

Part 1

Shrinking wealth, exploding debt,
Problems here at home,
Money made by pushing buttons,
Glutton to the bone.

Once on solid ground we stood,
On gold our wealth was founded,
By fiat did our currency
Quick become unbounded.

We have changed since younger times,
And return to simple ways
Though attractive, seems unwise –
Not all’s made best by rhymes.

The casting back for older ways
May not address today.

Part 2

Plain Language sways the largest crowd,
Unwraps their fears and dreams,
An orator can pull the strings
That gives the masses wings

They think them due, and masters of themselves
They fondly do believe,
In spite of all appearences,
By the web, deceived.

‘Liberty’, ‘sound currency’,
Ideographs appear
To ‘End the Fed’, and risk of riot
Is forgiven here.

Too blunt these tools for surgery,
Too simple to be applied.
(something, something, something, something)
Oversimplified.

Part 3

Questing is a noble thing,
Quixotic though it be.
Faking money cheapens all –
We are less than we could be.

Part 4

Call me Ishmael.
The obsession rules all.
Past all understanding,
We hasten to our fall.

All too clear, distinctions
Are black and white, no gray.
A single act can save the world
From evil, clear as day.

My world is more complex
Than that he comprehends,
All is justified, he said,
If we could ‘End the Fed’.

A single act in history
Has led to our despair,
In nineteen-thirteen did the Fed
Put hope beyond repair.

[A song]

Stomping the deck, enraged, obsessed,
(Ron Paul! Ron Paul!)
To roll back the clock is the heart of his quest.
(Ron Paul! Ron Paul!)
The angry old man, certain he’s right,
Compelled to risk all, to set wrong to right,
The Fed must die, gold standard nigh,
(Ron Paul! Ron Paul!)

Part 5

The casting back for older ways
May not address today.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

A Critical Reply to your "End the Fed" poem

Afraid you are misguided
Ron Paul knows his stuff
His record, warnings, forecasts, and book
Have made it clear enough.

"Ending The Fed" is not a day's work
Yes, the plan is to overhaul
But first, he calls for an auditing.
Read the website of Dr. Paul.

Regardless, this immoral institution
Is outside the realm of the Constitution.

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/end-the-fed/

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

But do you really think

But do you really think Ending the Federal Reserve would have prevented the 2008 financial crisis as Ron Paul likes to state?

Ron Paul Accurately Predicted...

the crisis. I'd like to reiterate that, as per the campaign site, while ending the Federal Reserve is Paul's ultimate goal, his more immediate goal has been to have transparency, an auditing, and oversight - fundamental to our system of "checks and balances." Given that Fed leadership is not elected, we, the people, a) have no representation, in b) an institution operating outside of and counter to what is called for in the Constitution, and c) operating autonomously.

Admittedly, monetary policy is not my area of expertise. Nonetheless, WITHOUT A DOUBT I believe that financial crises could have been prevented had there been oversight of the Federal Reserve. While there might be different economic theories, in reality not all prove to be correct. Congressman Ron Paul's ability to PREDICT such crises shows that his understanding (of causes & effects) was on target, key to addressing problems. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHNp1wf1T_k

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

"Nonetheless, WITHOUT A DOUBT

"Nonetheless, WITHOUT A DOUBT I believe that financial crises could have been prevented had there been oversight of the Federal Reserve."

This is a strong statement. From everything I read, the 2008 financial crisis was a consequence of many diverse interconnectedt events. To point to a single entity, like the Federal Reserve, as the root cause seems oversimplified to me; hence the title of this poem.

Not to challenge you, but to help me understand better, do you think you could support your claim? I would like to know from your point of view how eliminating the Federal Reserve would have preveneted the 2008 financial collapse... Teach me :)

I think you are right

the 2008 financial crisis was indeed a consequence of many diverse interconnected events. One of these (not that it is an event) was a strong sense that some of these large institutions were "too big to fail" and would ultimately get bailed out. When you are wearing a parachute, jumping out of a plane may look like a big risk, but it really isn't one. So many institutions took risks that they shouldn't have because they new that they could depend on the government and the federal reserve to be there for them.

Now, I think it is true that some of what caused the 2008 financial crisis was neither caused by the Federal Reserve, nor necessarily preventable by regulation of the Federal Reserve. But what can be said is that the short term "easing" of the situation, and the negative long-term consequences to the value of our precious Federal Reserve Notes, was a function of a Federal Reserve out of check - and frankly, a government out of check as well. The whole reason that the Fed is strictly independent from the government is there is a concern that if a central bank were strictly part of the government it would allow the government to print as much money as it wants.

But what we have now, is a an "independent" Fed that allows us to print as much money as we want - while single-handedly indebting our government and using that money to bolster the currencies and economies of the world. Thus, we have all the negative consequences of having an out of check central government lending authority, and all the negative consequences of having a private entity in control of our monetary policy.

So I think that although maybe regulation of the Federal Reserve Bank would not necessarily have prevented the 2008 crisis, it would have gone a long way towards making the state of our monetary policy a lot less harmful to the middle class.

Monetary policy not my area of expertise, but...

I agree that, while there are a few exceptions (zebra coloration, old newspapers, the binary system, et.al.) issues are never black & white. In general - from monetary policy or the deplorable state of education to the honeybee crisis or human health anomalies - we need to view things holistically. So no argument there. And Ron Paul hardly thinks in such terms.

As to the issue at hand, I thought Paul's words spoke for themselves. (I'm assuming you did listen to the House floor video clip.) But, okay, I'll put it this way. If you (a paid expert on the subject) and I (merely well-informed from decades of study and analysis) were both looking up at the sky, and you said to the group we were with, "Let's head for the beach," and I said, "I think we should all go inside as we're going to have a doozy of a storm," and people looked back and forth between us but then shrugged and went with you, the so-called expert (except for Queequeg, who came with me); and then, just as you reached the wide, unprotected expanse of sand, there was a terrible roar of thunder followed by lightning that terrified the group (some who were struck) and, elsewhere, hit transformers disrupting power and started fires and split great oaks, with torrential rain also causing pileups on the roadways... whose weather advice do you think people should listen to next time?

Also, not to mix metaphors, but referring to your poem, if a man dives into perilous waters to try to save a drowning baby, must we continue to honor that man once we learn it was he himself who threw the infant in? "Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again." Ben Bernanke (Nov. 8, 2002) Ahab! You caused me to have to go locate that tome and read it again (with little better understanding now than the first). But if the terms made my head spin, I got the gist; regardless, it was summed up. (http://www.dailypaul.com/232588/youre-right-we-did-it-were-v...)

In addition to what else I've said, even if I could be convinced in principle as to the benefits (and constitutionality) of the Federal Reserve, I maintain, it simply puts too much power in the hands of too few. Indeed (if a point you might call in "your favor," at least from Bernanke's perspective, as I gather that, if not necessarily a communist, you appear to be a proponent of "centralization"), Bernanke tells the story of how a singular case of chronic tuberculosis affected the entire system (via passivity and a spate of poor decisions due such an ambiguous chain of command). Heck, Obama just issued the latest half dozen of Executive Orders to ensure that all American citizens are aware of the proper pecking order down to the 15th in command, to ensure the smooth continuation of operations in the measly Department of Agriculture (and elsewhere) should FOURTEEN OTHER parties for some reason die, resign, or otherwise be rendered "unable to perform the functions and duties of the office of Secretary." The amorphous, all-powerful, non-elected, mysteriously-connected Federal Reserve System must, at the least, have oversight.

I'm not sure what you're doing here at the Daily Paul. You have mis-characterized Ron Paul. You have mis-characterized his supporters - as if blindly following some cult leader because of his charisma. For better or for worse, Ron Paul lacks charisma. (I'm thinking of Kennedy.) We don't blindly follow, but we do support him for president despite the lack of charisma because we know his record to know where he stands and to his prescience re the economy; we view him to be an honorable man; and we share his ideals. People can disagree on issues, but I do not appreciate the mis-characterization!

There are two reasons why I've responded here: first, as I see it, someone who loves Moby Dick can't be all bad (and, unless I'm mistaken, someone who also loves Mozart); secondly, given current events (current as opposed to events during the heyday of the whaling industry), I'm curious to understand the rationale behind someone's wish to retain the status quo system - if you would care to share that.

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

Why the Fed?

Like I mentioned above, there is a reason why the Federal Reserve is a private entity. IF you are going to have a currency not backed by a commodity, there is a fear that that would allow the government to print as much money as it wants. Enter the idea that in order for the Federal Reserve to print money it must BUY debt. In this case, Federal Treasury Bonds. So the fear goes that if the Federal Government exerts too much control over the Fed then it could set the price of printing money - and it could do it in such a way as to allow for hyper inflation. I think what CaptainAhab is saying is that perhaps the solution to monetary policy problem needs more than just a hammer. Perhaps it needs a set of surgical tools to diagnose the specific problems and develop specific, relevant, and nuanced solutions.

And in a way I think our good Doctor would agree. For although the bromide "END THE FED" is oft heard at Ron Paul rallies, strictly speaking Dr. Paul is for auditing the Fed, but more importantly reaffirming the notion that gold and silver are legal money - and allowing for citizens and governments alike to utilize legal money in the economy. Thus, if the Federal Reserve really does offer some benefit to the middle class, it will be the currency of choice and any competitor would fail to compete in the market of money. But if there is a money out there that can positively affirm that it will not hyper inflate, nor will it hyper deflate, then it may be a competitor to the Federal Reserve Note. So although it is convenient to say "End The Fed" I think more nuance exists to the solution.

Trying to understand here...

Thank you for your replies. I think we all agree that this is a complex issue. And I KNOW that "our good Doctor" would agree with what you said. I saw him explain that, as expounded on in his book, while "ending the fed" is his ultimate goal, it's not what he's calling for in the immediate future, as is also apparent from his campaign site. I have a question though. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that what you are saying is that (ironical as it seems to me) the Federal Reserve itself was to serve as something of a "check" against the government. And yet we somehow ended up with the worst of two worlds. And so (aside from the Constitutional issue), even assuming that there would be some reason for it to remain "private" (whether doing a good job or not), do you agree that it warrants being audited?

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

+ 1

Thanks.

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
http://www.dailypaul.com/203008/south-carolina-battle-of-cow...
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

Bump

_

Free includes debt-free!