Skip to main content

Here's a thought....

Maybe I am just naive, but if we are going to have to live with a central bank issuing and manipulating our national currency, why not let the American people go directly to the discount window and eliminate the usury-loving, fee-grabbing banker-broker middle men??

I think I could handle having a reasonable line of available credit, especially if collateralized, directly available to American citizens
at say...1.5%. Aren't we already being stuck with the bill for the failures of a credit system run by a central bank in the interest of...the banks.

Seriously, is there a reason why the FED can't be made a direct lender to consumers (aside from the entire industry of "shylocks" * and cozy financiers and whores on the Hill who control the levers, get rich from it, and then walk between the acid raindrops they seeded)?

[* Preemptive Political Correctness Alert : I use this term like underworld slang for 'pound of flesh' loan sharks, in NO way shape or form with any anti-Jewish connotation.]


Better yet, how about we (the people - our government) take actual unambiguous control of our money supply, rather than continue leaving it in the hands of private bankers. [*The Federal Reserve is, yes, a PRIVATE bank backed by a handful of concentrated BANKING INTERESTS.]

How nice it would be to be able to go borrow United States Notes rather than go to credit issuers peddling increasingly-sketchy Federal Reserve Notes. Our government is supposed to be the backer of Fed currency anyway, since we ditched the gold standard, so why not just let people directly borrow at 1% from the sole guarantor of our currency...our government. Isn't that what the banks do anyway and then add a fat price tag?

It is the PEOPLE's money......isn't it?? Should it be??

Comments

Anonymous said…
Would that be JUST like me writing Checks?

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

Libertarian National Committee Deathwatch Part 1

As the LNC continues to lurch towards collapse, with the latest news of mass layoffs at HQ, I've decided to begin tracking those things leading the national party to irrelevance, even as state and local parties gain power. As news, rumors and rhetoric break out, I shall chronicle them in this ongoing series at Delaware Libertarian. Organizations approaching failure have a number of characteristics. One of the most striking is renunciation of their purpose and effort to reinvent themselves as a "me-too" provider of services in the marketplace. In this, the LNC has been on a collision course with destiny for a while now. Recently, for example, it hired Republican Party web site developer TerraEclipse to redesign the LNC web site . Terra created a web site very similar to those of the clients it brags most about -- far-right Republican conservatives like Tom McClintock and BJ Lawson. A quick look at the web site they built for the LNC is instructive. The tagline on the ...

Soda tax debate reveals fundamental progressive assertions about your lack of individual rights and the "responsiblities" of the State

I thought it would be at least amusing to use the Delawareliberal comments as sub-headings regarding each category of what is wrong with the proposed tax on sodas and juice drinks. But there are so many different little strands of each comment that it would be impossible to pull them all out. So, instead, I'm going to let you read them in more or less the order they appeared, and note the assumptions. pandora: I’m perfectly okay with taxing sodas and juice drinks. Mainly because they’re total crap, and one of the main reasons our country’s children are overweight. They are also dirt cheap. Assumptions here: (1) Because "I" am perfectly okay with a new tax it should be imposed on everybody; (2) it is the government's responsibility to keep children from being obese; (3) the cheapness of the product to be taxed justifies charging people more for it. John Manifold: Soda fattens your kids [and you and your husband], shortens their lives, costs more than water [a...