51 votes

If Alan Greenspan Wants To 'End The Fed', Times Must Be Changing

Must be a lot easier to voice what you really believe when you're not the Fed chairman.

Forbes: Let’s see what Alan Greenspan has been saying recently:

“We have at this particular stage a fiat money which is essentially money printed by a government and it’s usually a central bank which is authorized to do so. Some mechanism has got to be in place that restricts the amount of money which is produced, either a gold standard or a currency board, because unless you do that all of history suggest that inflation will take hold with very deleterious effects on economic activity… There are numbers of us, myself included, who strongly believe that we did very well in the 1870 to 1914 period with an international gold standard.”

In the same January 2011 interview, Greenspan apparently wondered out loud if we even require a central bank!

When Alan Greenspan starts to talk about “End the Fed,” things are changing.

Continue reading at Forbes. . .



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

It's kind of late...

for his reversal on positions now. The damage has already been done and his betrayal of Ayn Rand is complete. Even if his words now reflect our own they are worthless.

Greenspan said end the fed back in 1996

http://www.libertyunbound.com/sites/files/printarchive/Liber...
Only a few months earlier, Greenspan
had recommended to a Senate committee
that economic regulations all
should be sunsetted. Senator Paul
Sarbanes accused him of "playing with
fire, or indeed throwing gasoline on
the fire," and asked him whether he
favored a sunset provision in the
authorization of the Fed. Greenspan
coolly answered that he did. Do you
actually mean, demanded the senator,
that the Fed "should cease to function
unless affirmatively continued"? "That
is correct, sir," Greenspan responded.
IIAll right," the senator came back.
liThe Defense Department?" "Yes."
The Senator could scarcely believe
his ears. "Now my next question is, is
it your intention that the report of this
hearing should be that Greenspan recommends
a return to the gold standard?"
Greenspan responded, "I've
been recommending that for years,
there's nothing new about that.... It
would probably mean there is only one
vote in the FOMC [Federal Open
Market Committee] for that, but it is
mine."

The New Hegelian Dialectic- Dollar vs. Gold

The silver shield discusses this very issue. He makes some good points, and seems to think we are being steered into a gold standard. (He advocates competitive currencies) Here is his video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7_4phuurzk

Cyril's picture

Which would prove Dr. Ron Paul was RIGHT...

Which would prove Dr. Ron Paul was RIGHT...

AGAIN.

Right from the start.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

This is an amazingly good

This is an amazingly good video.

I've heard other people talking about the same things on this thread and elsewhere.

The truth is out there if you want to find it - and different people keep coming to the same conclusions when looking at the facts.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

That's quite something from

That's quite something from the creator of the "Greenspan put". He kept the tech bubble going for a long time before it crashed despite him. Of course Greenspan's actions were mild compared to the current day era of endless QE.

Maybe there is something to

Maybe there is something to Bix Weir "Road to Roota"

The U.S. shouldn't return to a gold standard

It should let the free markets decide.

In a free market, when one commodity gets too expensive, ie because someone is hording gold and manipulating prices,the free market chooses something else just as good - for instance silver. Other alternative currencies, etc. The market participants choose by the nature of the markets, not fiat demand on what to use on high.

Since golds price is fixed in London everyday - which was just in the news a week ago, when Greenspan use to say as Federal Reserve chairman he was going to follow the lead of gold, it was just saying he was going to abdicate to the will of the bankers in London. The prices weren't based on a free market, but are manipulated.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Gold WAS what the free market decided

That's why government adopted it. I agree that competing currencies should be legalized and untaxed but the people who see the gold standard as a conspiracy are uninformed. The gold standard is more free market than a fiat currency because paper currencies not backed by precious metals are worthless without the coercive force of government and almost no one would voluntarily accept it. Returning to the gold standard, while not perfect, would force government to shrink because it reduces government's ability to use inflation to pay for the debt.

Free markets need to determine "what we return to"

If the free market decides, we don't need to discuss "returning to the gold standard", because the market will automatically choose that, right?

It isn't a political question then, it isn't even necessary to discuss.

The reason some people are pushing for a gold standard, is that at least 25% (or 30,000 tons of gold), are owned by central banks, and the price is fixed in London at N M Rothschild & Sons daily. Gold is a monopolized market with tons of manipulation and government intervention. It can not be considered at this moment to be a "free market" in the usual meaning of the word free.

Free markets don't always choose a certain commodity. When too many people try to artificially drive up the price of a commodity, like gold, the free market chooses something else. that is why free markets are better than government in deciding "what we return to"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_fixing

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100552060

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

But we need to put the

But we need to put the government on a gold standard.

Or silver.Or just prevent

Or silver.

Or just prevent them from issuing bills of credit.

Although technically, a legal tender is a little bit broader in scope - and might include settling taxes and court cases, really you just need to prevent the government from sticking you with worthless pieces of paper - the only real purpose to the legal tender clauses of the Constitution.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

CAN THE U.S. RETURN TO A GOLD STANDARD?

OK, I'm the first to agree that Greenspan became corrupted by the dark side and got totally full of himself in the glamor and lime light when he was part of the "Committee to Save the World" along with Robert Rubin and Larry Summers. However, there was once a time when Greenspan had more pure motives and I would direct you to a WSJ OpEd from September 1, 1981 titled "Can The US Return To A Gold Standard?" in the following link.... http://www.gold-eagle.com/greenspan011098.html.

Greenspan raises some very important issues about what the price of gold would have to be in a transition back to a gold standard to prevent either an inflation or a deflation, which provides good grist for the mill for discussion. It's very easy to take pot shots at Greenspan over his legacy, but it takes more effort to get a vigorous discussion going about how monetary reform can and will take place. Any takers out there?

Ed Rombach

Using the "gold" standard is hardly free market

Greenspan never had pure motives. He was part of Rand's inner circle, which only included racial Jews. Intellectual movements aren't about race.

It's the exact inability to tell imposters that makes one naive.

But if you check carefully what those two called for, there is constantly a redefining of definitions, using them slightly wrong, etc.

For instance, using the "gold" standard is not a free market. The markets should decide what it wants to use. In point of fact, gold is a controlled market where most of the gold is held by banks, and it's rate is fixed by the house of rothschild, which has been fixing it for more than 100 years.

Greenspan wasn't calling for a free market, but control by Rothschild.

Likewise, capitalism is not the same thing as a free market. It is one type of system that may or not be a free market, but free markets exist that aren't capitalism, and capitalism exists that isn't a free market - ie crony capitalism, mercantilism, etc.

The mis-use of terms by these two was intentional.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Greenspan on Gold....

MaxK - Just out of curiosity, did you read that WSJ OpEd in the link? I don't recall seeing Rothchild's name pop up in it, but I'll go back and check.

Ed Rombach

You don't need to see

You don't need to see Rothchild's name come up in a current news article to already know that the price of gold has been fixed for a long time, in London, at Rothschild's. Read the Wikipedia article I posted, its an ok article. Also, gold fixing was in the news last week.

In a controlled market with gold fixing, "going back to the gold standard", is not advocating a free market. It's working for whoever is fixing the gold. (FYI I read Greenspan's gold articles in Rand's capitalism the unknown ideal a long time ago. This isn't new news to me).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_fixing
"The London gold fixing or gold fix is the procedure by which the price of gold is determined twice each business day on the London market by the five members of The London Gold Market Fixing Ltd, on the premises of N M Rothschild & Sons.". etc.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

"You don't need to see

"You don't need to see Rothchild's name come up in a current news article"

MaxK - That WSJ OpEd by Greenspan was not current, but from 1981.

Ed Rombach

It might surprise you, but

It might surprise you, but I've been arguing against this for a long time.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Failure to Communicate

MaxK - That's really fascinating, but what does it have to do with the content of the WSJ OpEd I referred to?

Ed Rombach

It's a direct reply to your

It's a direct reply to your post in the thread about Greenspan once having pure motives, and using the gold standard to prove it.

Greenspan never had pure motives, and advocating just using gold is not how free markets operate. It is in fact free markets operating nominally that allows them to change standards, making monopolizing one commodity useless.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

MaxK - Get a grip on it.

I didn't say Greenspan had pure motives, I said.... there was once a time when Greenspan had more pure motives . Regardless, I'm not trying to debate about whether the Rothchilds controlled and manipulated the gold market. That's ancient history. However, I am trying to stir up some debate about what to do going forward. If the Fed is abolished, should the US dollar be convertible into gold? If so at what price? I want to discuss and debate monetary policy. Get my drift? I don't even know why you keep responding to my comments because it's quite clear that you did not read that WSL OpEd from 1981.

Ed Rombach

There is no debate - you get a gripe, you ass.

There is no debate.

1. Going back to a gold standard when the price of gold is fixed is a bad idea.

2. It isn't ancient history. London made the news just last week for fixing the price of gold, for crying out loud.

This discussion is over. You aren't bringing forth any facts or ideas, you are trying to cover them up, and have done nothing but insult, use innuendo, steer the discussion away from facts, and lie.

http://etfdailynews.com/2013/03/24/widespread-manipulation-o...

That's two days ago. Not ancient history, you get a grip, you ass.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Get A Gripe???

Get a gripe? Spell check.... I think you mean "You get a grip?". On the other hand, I've got a gripe with you because you called me a liar and I take offense to that. No problem with you calling me an ass because sometimes I am an ass ;-), but just out of curiosity can you inform me about what lies I have told in this forum?

Ed Rombach

Spelling flames on top of insults

You're getting really desperate to resort to typo spelling flames on an insult you initiated.

You are an ass. You have nothing to say.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Trust Me.... I Wouldn't Lie To You.

Gee wiz MaxK... That hurts my feelings when you call me an ass. :( But when you call me a liar you are impugning my reputation. Please substantiate your claim that I have lied on this forum or retract it.

Ed Rombach

And, point of fact, as

And, point of fact, as FEDERAL RESERVE CHAIRMAN, when some people say he was "doing a good job" by advocating following the gold market's lead, he was not - and intentionally not - doing a good job.

Because the gold markets aren't any free-er than the silver market. In fact, it's been controlled by the house of Rothschild for a long time, where they openly fix the price of gold.

Greenspan wasn't following what the market said. He was following what the house of Rothschild said. I don't mean by secret cables. I mean, the price of gold is fixed, is a controlled market, and has been for a long time.

A free market would switch to something else when that happens. It is that, and that only, that makes monopolizing a commodity too expensive for those trying to corner it.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Calling for the gold standard

Calling for the gold standard as head of the federal reserve, and just "following it's lead", is the same thing as Greenspan saying he's working for the house of Rothschild in a controlled market, which Greenspan knows we have.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_fixing

The London gold fixing or gold fix is the procedure by which the price of gold is determined twice each business day on the London market by the five members of The London Gold Market Fixing Ltd, on the premises of N M Rothschild & Sons.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Greenspan - is exactly wrong. On purpose even!

Don't get me wrong, I'm for the use of commodity money.

But bankers first seized control by monopolizing it, particular gold, inflating receipts for gold held in vaults beyond what was there, debasing coins, shaving off coins, passing laws to seize it, hoard it, or require it's use, etc.

In a free market, when one commodity gets too expensive, ie because someone is hording gold and manipuling prices,the free market chooses something else just as good - for instance silver. Other alternative currencies, etc. The market participants choose by the nature of the markets, not fiat demand on what to use on high.

Greenspan is exactly wrong. Wanting to use just gold is not how free markets operate. And he knows it. Always has.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Cyril's picture

Dear Mr. Greenspan,

Dear Mr. Greenspan,

Nice try!

But this is too late for your posterity, already.

Regards,

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Will Ending the Fed mean victory for liberty?

I believe they have strategies which already exist in case it does end. In order for an "official" one-world currency to come about, it seems as though the FR must take a dive. The alternative is to force us to switch into a "cashless" system for it to sustain itself in perpetuity. Whether or not we have an official one-world currency is a moot point really, because all currencies are essentially controlled by a select few at the top.

The real concern is how are we going to make sure that their solution is "our" solution? To be complacent in just ending the Fed is not a win per-se, because they can just have IMF, UN or World Bank take over the role of the Fed globally through their "new" gold-backed currency programme. And they will be accepted with open-arms when the time comes. And it appears that "we" are not thinking that far ahead to have realistic solutions to prevent it.

IMF remains one of the largest official holders of gold in the world.

http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/facts/gold.htm

"society could go in a thousand directions as to how it would exist and how it would be, but the public mustn't know that. The generations must believe that the one that they're born into is naturally evolved."-Lenin/Alan Watt/cuttingthroughthematrix.com