Friday, January 13, 2012

The Fools at the Fed

WaPo reviews the FedReserveBoard's meeting minutes of 2006.

As I mentioned earlier, public "servants" can make fools of themselves with no help from the kulaks.

And the FRB did so, in spades.

"Audit" the Fed?

That's not even close to what ought to happen to these bozos.


Gregory said...

That is why we need to know what kind of Folks a Ron Paul would appoint. He has not even passed this type of test yet. It is still a mystery to me who he would appoint.

Saint Revolution said...


Paul wants to ABOLISH the fed...and rightly so.

Saint Revolution said...

Ron Paul And
MONEY - Why He Wants To Abolish The Fed, The IRS, And ReIntroduce Gold As Currency

J. Strupp said...

Abolish the Fed. and tie our currency to shiny gold metal. Dumd idea 100 years ago. Dumb today.

Saint Revolution said...

Yeah, I guess it is "dumd".

It's much more intelligent to back any fiat currency with nothing but public confidence...IOW, politicians' "hot air". In this fashion, our wonderfully trustful government can declare anything they want legal tender.

Hair berets? $5. Toe jamm? $1 bill. Monkey penises? $20 buck notes.

Yeah, that's the intelligent thing. Back paper currency with absolutely nothing.

Back nothing with nothing.

You know what?

Yeah, just go ahead and get yourself a colour laser copier and just start printing your own money right there in your basement.

What's the difference?

In fact, just make up your own currency.

What's the difference? can put your own "dumd" puss right there on the front of your money.

Do you ever read beyond the title of these articles?

Ooooooohhhhhh, are the intelligent one and NOT the "dumd" one.

BTW, that key there...there...right there on your's called a SPELL CHECKER.

Ussse itt.

J. Strupp said...

You are one strange dude, Saint.

Anonymous said...

Strupp's point is that human beings deemed gold as "valuable". Gold, by itself, is NOT worth anything. We MADE it that way.

What are the costs involved in tying money to the gold standard?

A number of economists that run the philosophical gamut chime in.

J. Strupp said...

That is exactly my point anon. But you can't explain this simple concept to Mises people. So I don't try.

Saint Revolution said...


Relativism in gold assignment is irrelevant here.

Did you READ my links? Even Paul understands the costs and limitations involved in retro gold backing.

However, he does have a complete handle on an answer.

The question is simple: do we back nothing with nothing?

Do we back greenback currency with nothing more than relative confidence or lack thereof?

Before you answer, keep in mind the time continuum...the answer and decision should stand up today and also a century from now and beyond.

...and coattail-riding on others' answers.

...and Strupp...I am one strange dude because I demand perfection in your writing? I would assume you are one liberal fucker who cannot accept the slightest bit of constructive unapproachable prick most people have given up on because of your arrogance in your mediocrity.

Get over it and improve yourself.

Take a fucking hint.

Peruse other Saint Revolution Dad29 blog comments here.

J. Strupp said...

You're a strange dude because you refer to monkey penises.