0 votes

The Last 95 Years Without the Fed

Long time reader, first time poster here....

There was a time about a year ago when I could come look at the Daily Paul everyday after work and spend hours learning from all of you. It seems now that all the basic information about how our current economy and monetary system currently is and what we think it should be has been put out there.

I have a finance degree with an economics minor and it's not too much of a chore for me to understand how our economy, fiat currency, fractional reserve banking etc. operates. What really bugs me is that I didn't see it before. When I go back and read my old college textbooks it's all right there but with a slight twist that kept me from raising any questions about whether it was right or wrong. However, my friends and family will not even flinch when shown this information.

I want to paint a picture for them showing them what the last 95 years would have been like without the intervention of the Fed.

For starters....

-Instead of a handful of large multinational corporations in each industry there would be large numbers of smaller companies competing fairly for quality labor and market share by paying higher wages producing better products and actually engaging in customer service as opposed to outsourcing to people who can't even communicate with me because they can barely speak my language.
The larger companies are the ones who best achieves these goals. What does this have to do with the Fed? Well, in order to create a large multinational corporation today, you borrow cheap credit to buy out your competition and since your the only game in town now you don't have to focus on quality products and customer service and you can cut costs even further since you no longer have to compete for talent in the supply of labor.

-Capital for future economic growth depends solely on savings. Today thanks to the fed capital seems to appear out of nowhere even with a negative savings rate. Magic or funny money? (Speaking of economic growth, of the last few quarters where there was GDP growth does anyone know how much of that growth can be attributed to increased government spending?)

-Not sure if this would go over well but I'd like to believe that because of my first point and hopefully a more informed labor force, the lowest paid full time wage (not jobs specifically targeted to teens and students) for the lowest skilled job that any competent person in the labor supply could perform would be enough to cover the minimum standard of living (housing+transportation+discretionary+savings). Apply supply and demand to the labor supply and a person can increase his income and wealth by obtaining skills and education that sets him or her apart from the rest of the labor supply and puts him or her at a higher demand. All this without government intervention. The only thing I agree on with AFL-CIO is that no one working forty hours a week 52 weeks a year should be poor.

Please give me some more ideas and feel free to correct me if I am wrong on any of this. I might be educated but I went to State school and we all know what government education is like. My second point might even be over the heads of some friends and family of mine. I am alone in this fight over here on my end. Thank you.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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


I guess I am looking for more specifics on the domestic side. A way I could convince a union electrician for example who is highly skilled and productive but well he's union. Obama is king because democrats pander to unions but if you'd listen to some of these people talk outside of politics you would swear that they were conservatives who believed that hard work is what earns wealth and you shouldn't have to share the fruits of your labor with someone who refuses to work.

...or convincing my father who is a civil engineer who is most likely underpaid because his 3% standard of living raises can't keep up with the real inflation of 10-15% over the last 30 years.

Willy, I think you're dead


I think you're dead on except for one thing.

The labor force wouldn't necessarily be earning more money, however their money's purchasing power would be dramatically higher.

So if someone works forty hours/ week for 52 weeks would maybe earn the same amount of money they currently earn, but they'd be able to stretch their money much farther.

Without a fed we wouldn't have such high inflation and greater purchasing power, which means that everybody would be richer.

Funny, because I was just speaking to my father last night about his first car. He bought a brand new 1976 Pontiac Trans Am for $3,200...

Do you know someone who cares a lot about Israel? Send them this link that explains why Ron Paul's message is better for Israel, America, and the world. www.AmericansForIsrael.com


exactly why I didn't say increase income until I started talking about the person who increases skills and education so that he or she would be in the smaller group of people who employers would have to compete by offering more to retain those people.

I posted this question

I posted this question yesterday
What would the USA be without the Fed? - http://www.dailypaul.com/node/72981

I think most of us agree that we would be wealthier.
Plus the government wouldn't be intrusive in every aspect of society,the economy...etc.

I don't have a degree in anything,just an understanding.


It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.
— Samuel Adams

13 No servant can serve two masters; for either he shall hate the one, and love the other, or else he shall lean to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and riches. - Luke 16