Libertarian Wall Street Protesters Demand End to the Fed


Libertarians Support Wall Street Protest to End the Fed

Ron Paul says that the Wall Street protests are legitimate, and that they are really protesting against the Federal Reserve.

One of the protest organizers tells me that a large proportion of the protesters are Ron Paul supporters. Most of them believe that ending the Federal Reserve is the most important step to restore our country’s prosperity. See this, this and this.

Remember, even the Wall Street Journal has called for the Fed to be broken up.

As I have extensively documented, the Fed is largely responsible for the economic crisis, and has failed to meet a single one of its stated mandates (let alone its implied ones).

The Fed has been enabler-in-chief for the corruption rampant on Wall Street.

And as I noted Tuesday:

Some very well-known economists also support ending the Fed.

For example, Milton Friedman said:

This evidence persuades me that at least a third of the price rise during and just after World War I is attributable to the establishment of the Federal Reserve System… and that the severity of each of the major contractions — 1920-1, 1929-33 and 1937-8 is directly attributable to acts of commission and omission by the Reserve authorities…

Any system which gives so much power and so much discretion to a few men, [so] that mistakes — excusable or not — can have such far reaching effects, is a bad system. It is a bad system to believers in freedom just because it gives a few men such power without any effective check by the body politic — this is the key political argument against an independent central bank…

To paraphrase Clemenceau, money is much too serious a matter to be left to the central bankers.

Austrian economists such as Murray Rothbard also would like to end the Fed:

Given this dismal monetary and banking situation, given a 39:1 pyramiding of checkable deposits and currency on top of gold, given a Fed unchecked and out of control, given a world of fiat moneys, how can we possibly return to a sound noninflationary market money? The objectives, after the discussion in this work, should be clear: (a) to return to a gold standard, a commodity standard unhampered by government intervention; (b) to abolish the Federal Reserve System and return to a system of free and competitive banking; (c) to separate the government from money; and (d) either to enforce 100 percent reserve banking on the commercial banks, or at least to arrive at a system where any bank, at the slightest hint of nonpayment of its demand liabilities, is forced quickly into bankruptcy and liquidation. While the outlawing of fractional reserve as fraud would be preferable if it could be enforced, the problems of enforcement, especially where banks can continually innovate in forms of credit, make free banking an attractive alternative.

Congressmen Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich have introduced bills to abolish the Fed.

And as I noted last week, most Americans want the Fed ended or at least reined in:

At least 75% of the American people want a full audit of the Fed, and most were against reconfirming Bernanke.

Indeed, as Bloomberg noted last December:

A majority of Americans are dissatisfied with the nation’s independent central bank, saying the U.S. Federal Reserve should either be brought under tighter political control or abolished outright, a poll shows.

***

Americans across the political spectrum say the Fed shouldn’t retain its current structure of independence. Asked if the central bank should be more accountable to Congress, left independent or abolished entirely, 39 percent said it should be held more accountable and 16 percent that it should be abolished. Only 37 percent favor the status quo.

As I have extensively documented, the Fed is largely responsible for the economic crisis, and has failed to meet a single one of its stated mandates (let alone its implied ones).

Indeed, the Founding Fathers despised the British central bank, and said that the right to create their own credit and currency was one of the core battles in the Revolutionary War.

Obama Is Not the Answer

Libertarians also point out that – while the Obama campaign and Democratic National Committee are trying to hijack the Wall Street protests – they have been part of the problem, not part of the solution.

They point out that Obama has appointed Wall Street insiders to all of his key economic posts, and accepted more money from Goldman Sachs and the other big Wall Street banks than anyone else (and is still raking it in). As such, despite his populist rhetoric, he’s with Wall Street, not the protesters. Indeed, he is Wall Street.

They point out that Obama has continued the process of turning the U.S. into a banana republic, and whether you call it communism, fascism or crony capitalism, Obama has been at least as bad as Bush.

They point out that Obama has been a wolf in sheep’s clothing, someone who thinks high levels of unemployment are good.

They point out that Obama has been more brutal than Bush and has destroyed our liberties even faster than Bush.

For these reasons, libertarians correctly state that re-electing Obama is not the answer. And they note that Ron Paul’s consistent, decades-long positions are much closer to the American peoples’ demands than Obama’s.

Update: The libertarian CEO of Overstock.com supports Occupy Wall Street.

Postscript: I voted for Obama. But anyone who still thinks Obama will save us is high.

On the other hand, libertarians have been out of power for a long time. Neoliberals and Neoconservatives – two masks on a single face of corruption – have been in the driver’s seat for decades. Libertarians should welcome the protests as a chance to challenge the status quo, to promote liberty and to end the Fed – the chief enabler of corruption in our country today.

Folks dismissing the Occupy protests as being Obama propaganda or left-wing haven’t yet learned the facts, are blaming the fact that the mainstream Democratic party is trying to infiltrate the movement on the protesters, or are letting Fox, Drudge or other mainstream news sources blow a sub-set of the overall protests out of proportion. See this, this and this. Indeed, as the Associated Press notes, the protesters are fed up with BOTH mainstream parties.

This entry was posted in Politics / World News. Bookmark the permalink.
  • dictateursanguinaire

    ‘All of you are ideologues except the libertarians and Austrians!’

    and you normally post good material…

  • Bev

    Congressman Dennis Kucinich introduced the National Emergency Employment Defense Act (“NEED,” HR 6550*) which contains all the monetary reform provisions of The American Monetary Act- see the brochure at http://www.monetary.org.

    It is much more than regulation; it fundamentally reforms our private CREDIT/DEBT system now wrecking our nation and harming all humanity, and replaces it with a government MONEY system.

    The Act achieves reform with 3 basic provisions. All three are necessary; doing one or two of them wouldn’t work and could cause more damage.

    In brief:

    First the Federal Reserve gets incorporated into the U.S. Treasury where all new money is created by our government – what people think happens now.

    Second, It ends the fractional reserve system. Banks no longer have the accounting privilege of creating our money supply. All their previously issued credit is converted into U.S. Money through an elegant and gentle accounting change. The banks are held accountable for this conversion and from that point operate the way people think they do now – as intermediaries between depositors and borrowers.

    Third, new money is introduced by the government spending it into circulation for infrastructure, starting with the $2.2 trillion the engineers tell us is needed to properly maintain our infrastructure over the next 5 years. Infrastructure will include the necessary human infrastructure of health care and education.

    Banks are encouraged to continue lending as profit making companies, but are no longer allowed to create our money supply through their loan making activity.

  • jadan

    Those who heap opprobrium on the Fed and idealize the past and yearn to “return to a system of free and competitive banking” are engaging in Reaganite daydreams. The Fed was created to fix a broken system that regularly plunged the country into vicious deflations. There is nowhere in the past to go, except perhaps to the greenback issued by Lincoln’s government. Money is a creature of law and it is all “fiat”, paper or not. The gold standard didn’t work. The management of money is a purpose of government. There is no monetary system independent of government. Ron Paul is a principled man, but he’s clueless about money.

    • Howard T. Lewis III

      The old system was fatally flawed and a revamp was necessary. Aspects of international trade put our dollar at a disadvantage and western expansion should have been done with more consideration, if at all. Quality in government was cast aside for pillage and burn. There was no such thing as birth control back then with the Manifest Destiny crowd. Their impact was destruction itself. Pity is the word.

  • Neo

    Occupy Wall Street is sure turning into a catch all crock pot of social arrest. I don’t know if not having a unified message is helping or hurting because it allows it to mean different things for different people, which is also allowing it to grow more rapidly as oppposed to just fizzling out. Which makes sense since we are talking about the 99% vs the 1% who are very succinct and bonded in their agenda.

  • Brian Horsfield

    The really big money loves big government. Why did Wall Street and international financiers fund the Bolshevik Revolution? Why did the US tax exempt foundations conspire together to promote “collectivism” in the United States? Please look up Norman Dodd and his work as Director of the Reece Commission – a Congressional Inquiry into the tax exempt foundations in the 1950′s. This interview was made of him shortly before he died: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUYCBfmIcHM.

    I love Kucinich – especially on foreign policy – but on domestic policy I am for Ron Paul. Adding more control and regulation always hurts the small businesses most: the free market gets skewed to favor the very big business it’s supposed to control. The FED is heart of the beast of this problem: the ultimate special interest and I am glad Americans are waking up to this fact.

  • Harry Johnson

    And now the libertaricons try to hijack it too. The libertaricons are all tools of the republiCON party. None of them have repudiated it and they all spout the republiCON line whenever push comes to shove. The libertaricon/republicon program of deregulate, let the capitalists and banksters do whatever they want lead to this mess. A stronger dose of the same old crap spewed since reagan will not fix the problem.

  • http://Myownmarketnarrative.blogspot.com Never accept the terms of service

    Those people aren’t libertarians by the way. If you’re antigay, antichoice, antidrugs, and so on then you are not a libertarian, just a silly conservative who hides his ayn Rand fetish well.

  • http://ralphanomics.blogspot.com/ Ralph Musgrave

    There is huge problem with incorporating the Fed within the Treasury: politicians then have direct access to the printing press! That’s why Ron Paul wants to abolish the Fed.

    Politicians’ influence on the Fed is bad enough as it is. For example the disastrous stagflationary episode in the 1970s is attributed by some to Nixon’s pressure on Arthur Burns (Fed chairman) to throw money around in the early 1970s.

 

 

Twitter