In the early 1830s, the Cherokee nation, located in Appalachia, was pressured by the U.S. government to evacuate their land after gold was discovered on their territory. John Marshall’s Supreme Court ruled in 1831 that the Cherokee were not a sovereign nation and could not hold title to the land on which they lived (despite having lived there for many generations). The U.S. government, only in existence for less than fifty years at the time, conveniently ruled that the Cherokee did not have constitutional protections and could not control their own territory any longer. President Andrew Jackson led the charge to remove and displace the Cherokee and their counterpart tribes that called the region their home.

“John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it! Build a fire under them. When it gets hot enough, they’ll go.” ~ Andrew Jackson

Despite the efforts of Cherokee Chief John Ross and other Cherokee members, the Cherokee were forcibly removed from their land in 1838 on what we know today as the Trail of Tears. Thousands of Cherokee individuals were taken from their homes, without even having time to get their possessions, and marched, surrounded by U.S. soldiers, to concentration camps or “stockades” in Tennessee. The Cherokee were held in these stockades for several months, during which many individuals died of cold, starvation, and disease. Those who survived the stockades were then forced by the U.S. government to march to Oklahoma reservations. It’s estimated that up to a third of the 13,000 Cherokee population died in the Tennessee stockades and march to Oklahoma.

John Ross desperately pleaded for his people and their basic human and legal rights. The Cherokee felt the full brunt of the police state in the 1830s: they were swept from their homes, marched to concentration camps, and then forced to walk hundreds of miles to their new “home” courtesy of the U.S. government. Government is forceful by nature, and the Cherokee learned this harsh fact early on in the U.S. government’s existence.

In Washington D.C., John Ross expressed these words to the U.S. government in 1836 in a final effort to resist the U.S. government which was so desperately trying to displace the Cherokee people.

“By the stipulations of this instrument, we are despoiled of our private possessions, the indefeasible property of individuals. We are stripped of every attribute of freedom and eligibility for legal self-defence. Our property may be plundered before our eyes; violence may be committed on our persons; even our lives may be taken away, and there is none to regard our complaints. We are denationalized; we are disfranchised. We are deprived of membership in the human family! We have neither land nor home, nor resting place that can be called our own.” ~ John Ross; September 28, 1836

Share/Bookmark

Picture a new village, untouched by current monetary laws. People begin exchanging goods through the process of bartering. This makes it difficult to know what you can buy, because the milkman will only need so many of the pouches that you manufacture. Because bartering can be inefficient, unpredictable, and unreliable, the people decide to represent their goods with something of value. They find copper, silver, and gold nearby, all unique, relatively limited (therefore they hold more value than, say, granite), and quite durable. Thus, they can represent their goods with these valuable metals (and to make it more convenient, paper guarantees to those metals).

Money does not get its value through “force” as some believe. When the people in the village were looking for a more effective way to exchange goods, they were not trying to represent force. They were aiming to represent value through metals that were limited enough to have value, had durability, and could not easily be counterfeit (or inflated). Currency is never originally brought about by force or through government.

Historically government has gotten involved in currency for one reason: greed. Kings would debase the metals that the market freely used and valued. Kings would inflate and devalue the currency that was once stable when the market was in control. Government could not debase metals, clip coins, and print unsound paper money and expect people to voluntarily accept it, thus force was necessary to make it happen. Legal tender laws forced devalued government money on the people and markets.

It is difficult for government to grow when people demand that the money be backed by hard goods (such as metals). It is difficult for government to expand its presence when the money supply is stable and in the hands of the people. History clearly shows us that when government wants to expand its state or military presence beyond its usual bounds, it cannot do so without control over the nation’s money supply. Without the control of money, government would have to take every cent it needed directly from the people and businesses, an approach that would become very unpopular in a very short amount of time.

This is why governments have always tried to take control and monopolize money. If people are forced to use government money and cannot create a competing currency, they must use the money the government gives them. Government can then indirectly “tax” the people through inflation and devaluation of the currency. This allows government to grow its boundaries and influence without directly feeling the repercussions of a people who see their property forcefully go out the door to the government in the form of taxes. Monetary inflation is a very indirect and gradual process for government to take money from the people. And it can only work if people are forced to accept the debased and often worthless money. As the money supply grows without solid commodity backing, prices begin to rise, impacting poorer citizens the most.

This brings us to the U.S. Some have argued that the Constitution allows the government to pass legal tender laws and control many aspects of monetary policy. However, on close inspection, this power has been greatly abused and misinterpreted. The Constitution states:

Article I, Section 8: The Congress shall have Power…To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.

Article I, Section 10: No State shall…coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debt.

Congress has the power to coin money, regulate its value, but nowhere does it have the authority to force people to accept that money. Congress can create and regulate its money, but it cannot mandate that people use it through legal tender laws. The states are prohibited from coining money and are required to make only “gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debt.”

Neither the powers delegated to Congress or the states give them the authority to shove a currency onto the people. “Legal tender” means tender in the payment of debt. The states are given the duty to be sure that only gold and silver can be legal tender. For legal and juristic purposes, only gold and silver are legally acceptable in the payments of debt. But this does not give the state the power to dictate the forms of other monetary commodities or economic exchanges that the people and market might come up with. In other words, the state controls the legal use of money in the payment of debt, but neither the state or Congress has authority over the economic exchanges of money in the marketplace.

The Founders did not give the federal government the ability to monopolize currency and force it on the people. There is no power in the Constitution given to the government to restrict currency production and choice of the people and marketplace. In fact, many competing and private currencies functioned efficiently for a good part of the 1800s. Today, however, we accept legal tender laws as a legitimate role of Congress, when in reality they do nothing but unconstitutionally force a worthless currency on the people.

Consider the basic principles of modern legal tender laws. No government force or mandates would be necessary to encourage people to use a widespread, valuable, and sustainable currency. Legal tender laws and government coercion over money are always used to force a currency that would otherwise be worthless onto the people and marketplace. Imagine if the legal tender laws enacted in the 1960s, forcing people to accept Federal Reserve Notes, were repealed today. Who in their right minds would continue using a currency whose value consistently decreases, is in the control of seven central bankers, and in reality is worth nothing more than the paper on which it is printed?

People will often reply that repealing legal tender laws would lead to the creation of hundreds of private currencies and economic chaos. But remember something. Especially in today’s digital, national, and even global economy, a currency would have to be simple, recognizable, valuable, and widespread to have a chance of surviving in the market. People will naturally encourage and use the currency that holds the most value and brings the greatest amount of ease to transactions. If that is the currency produced by Congress, so be it.

Monetary freedom simply gives people the option of throwing off the restrictive chains of a centrally manipulated, inflated, and drastically devalued currency, the symptoms of a government out of control. Competition in money would force government to stay in line, live within its means (both domestically and overseas), and maintain high levels of sensibility and responsibility. History has visibly painted the picture that without control over money, government’s long-term abilities are only as able as those that the people directly delegate to it. Freedom of money plays a major role in ensuring freedom and representation in government.

“With the exception only of the period of the gold standard, practically all governments of history have used their exclusive power to issue money to defraud and plunder the people.” – F.A. Hayek

“Paper money has had the effect in your state that it will ever have, to ruin commerce, oppress the honest, and open the door to every species of fraud and injustice.” – George Washington

“All the perplexities, confusion and distresses in America arise not from defects in the constitution or confederation, nor from want of honor or virtue, as much from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation.” – John Adams

“Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce.” - James A. Garfield

“We are in danger of being overwhelmed with irredeemable paper, mere paper, representing not gold nor silver; no sir, representing nothing but broken promises, bad faith, bankrupt corporations, cheated creditors and a ruined people.” – Daniel Webster

Share/Bookmark

To grasp banking we must first learn and understand fractional reserve banking.

The fractional reserve banking system gives banks the chance to keep only a portion of their deposits in reserve, allowing them to loan or invest the rest. Today U.S. banks are required to keep only 10% of their deposits in reserve. So if you deposit $100 in the bank, legally the bank is only required to hold $10 of it in reserve. This provides cash for “day to day” privileges and allows the bank to invest in securities and loan out funds, among other things.

You may have heard how the “panics” in the 1800s were a failure of the free market. Many of the “panics” were caused from bank runs, meaning that the banks had overextended themselves and their promises and could not provide the money when customers decided to withdraw their holdings. In the 19th century banks kept gold (primarily) in their vaults and issued paper promises, so to speak, guaranteeing people their gold. Banks would print more of the paper money, loan it out or invest it, creating monetary inflation (because the new paper notes were not backed by more gold; rather they were diluting the value of the gold held in the bank’s vault).

In the Panic of 1819, both local banks and the national bank joined in the practice of spreading themselves too thin through fractional reserve lending. When people wanted to withdraw their funds and realized they couldn’t, it led to the bank runs and harsh economic conditions as the economy was forced to contract after the unsustainable monetary inflation.

The inflation caused by the banks led to higher prices domestically and an outflow of gold from the U.S. due to the suddenly more attractive prices from foreign producers, which forced banks to draw back on their commitments. The law in 1819, and for many years following, allowed banks to neglect their depositors’ holdings while still continuing their operations. If they overextended themselves, banks were given a special privilege and protection from government that allowed them to ignore their clients’ rightful and original property, and instead pursue the unsustainable and destructive road of monetary inflation and the creation of artificial credit.

I bring this up because people who support government and central economic intervention will often bring up the “financial panics” in the 1800s to show how disastrous a free market is. But the truth is that the government protections placed on banks helped cause a great majority of the panics. Because of the government protection, banks were able to take unnatural risks that never would have been possible in a free market. Government shielded banks when the fractional reserve process failed. In other words, the government protected the fractional reserve system in order to benefit banks, not the citizens.

Fast-forward to 1907. This was the time of the last “panic” before the Federal Reserve Act was signed into law, creating the central bank, in 1913. Once again this crisis came about because banks were unable to give customers their initial deposits. This caused a whole stream of withdrawals (or attempted withdrawals) by bank customers around the nation. Banks had placed the deposits into income-earning securities and did not have the necessary cash to meet customer demands.

After the Panic of 1907 and the umpteenth failure of fractional reserve lending, the attacks still were not aimed at the fractional reserve system. This system, when protected through law, gave banks the undoubted opportunity to inflate the money supply, overextend themselves in ways that would never be sustainable in a free market economy, and give little regard to the customers’ original property. Instead, economists began calling for a “lender of last resort” to bail out banks if they were caught overstretched in commitments. Many people don’t realize it, but the U.S. financial system has been in bailout mode for nearly a century since this event. In an otherwise relatively free market system, banking started as the largest sour grape of interventionism in the bunch.

What are the alternatives to fractional reserve lending, which has been criticized by free market, sound money supporters since its inception in the U.S.? Interestingly enough, the Romans sorted this out by making a clear legal distinction between “demand deposits” and “time deposits.”

Demand deposits are the deposits and withdrawals you and I make everyday. We expect to get the same amount of money that we initially deposited to the bank. Just as when you give $100 to a friend to hang on to for a week, you are not giving him the right to invest or spend it for his own personal gain at the risk of you completely losing that money.

Time deposits are essentially what we have today with Certificates of Deposit (CDs), where a depositor and a bank enter into an agreement of money guaranteed somewhere down the road (such as 1, 3, or 5 years). Time deposits represent fixed contracts where both parties know what they are getting into and what the terms and risks are.

Under a system similar to the Roman principles, banks would legally be required to hold 100% reserve rates with demand deposits. This guarantees that individual property is protected and not at risk of being permanently inflated or loaned away by the bank. With time deposits, however, the bank and the depositor agree on a certain time frame that the funds would be controlled by the bank, giving the bank the opportunity to invest or loan the money. If a depositor decided to withdraw his funds before the agreed-upon date he would be given a fee of some sort, just as we have with Certificates of Deposits today.

Understanding banking and monetary history in the U.S. is pivotal to understanding how booms, busts, and “panics” are initially created. Harsh economic times have more often than not, whether in the 19th, 20th, or 21st century, been created through government protections and privileges to certain industries, central manipulation of interest rates and credit, and unceasing government intervention in the economy.

People point to the failure of the fractional reserve system that occurred time and time again in the 1800s (through bank runs) and mistakenly shove the blame on the free market, and use it as an excuse to bring even more government intervention into the economy. History shows that when the free market is manipulated from outside forces the worst problems come about.

Today we are led to believe that a bailout-guaranteed, centrally manipulated, and government protected banking system is the most sustainable and sensible option. I have a very hard time believing this, just by looking through our own history. Government somehow fooled the majority into believing that it had absolutely nothing to do with causing “panics,” recessions, or any other rough economic situation you can think of.

It is long overdue that people cease buying into this ridiculous idea of an angelic government that knows the cure for every economic ill. Allowing the government and central bankers to freely mold and manipulate the economy is precisely what caused the many economic collapses over the decades and centuries. Freedom and the protection of private property represent the most solid and sustainable foundation for a prosperous economy.

Share/Bookmark

Different agencies and groups have been given the task to audit and investigate the Fed since it was created in 1913. The Treasury Department took on the job for the Fed’s first eight years of existence. In 1921, the General Accounting Office (GAO, now the Government Accountability Office) was established with the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921. The GAO is an “independent, nonpartisan agency that works for Congress.” It’s duties consist of performing audits, evaluations, and investigations. In general, it is called the “watchdog” of Congress.

Congress gave the GAO the auditing responsibility over the Federal Reserve until 1933, when Congress decided to give other agencies and firms the responsibility. For more than forty years after 1933, the GAO’s duties did not involve auditing the Federal Reserve. This changed on July 21, 1978, when President Jimmy Carter signed The Federal Banking Agency Audit Act into law. The Act had several major flaws. It returned auditing power over the Fed back to the GAO, except for four different areas that the GAO was prohibited to audit:

(1) transactions conducted on behalf of or with foreign central banks, foreign governments, and nonprivate international financing organizations;

(2) deliberations, decisions, and actions on monetary policy matters, including discount window operations, reserves of member banks, securities credit, interest on deposits, and open market operations;

(3) transactions made under the direction of the Federal Open Market Committee including transactions of the Federal Reserve System Open Market Account; and

(4) those portions of oral, written, telegraphic, or telephonic discussions and communications among or between Members of the Board of Governors, and officers and employees of the Federal Reserve System which deal with topics listed in this Act.

Yes, it is actually prohibited to audit these areas of the Federal Reserve, and they are not any small items. Perhaps most alarming is the fact that the GAO can’t investigate the Fed’s foreign dealings. Letting their foreign operations go unnoticed is a rather disturbing prohibition, and brings up questions of sovereignty, loyalty, and what’s in the best interests of the country. We are talking about an organization that has monopoly control over money and credit; if anything, they should be one of the most heavily investigated areas of government.

The argument against allowing Congress and the American people to investigate these four items is that it allows the Fed to operate more efficiently and productively without excessive public or private scrutiny. No kidding. I don’t think anyone would argue that being protected against any investigation into four key areas of your operation would hurt efficiency.

This statement from John F. Kennedy serves as a good reminder of what we should expect and tirelessly demand from government:

“We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”

Money is one of the primary areas where Congress has neglected and ignored its Constitutional responsibility. We have given unimaginable power to a central bank, and prohibited important aspects of that central bank from being audited. This is dangerous in any circumstance, but that danger increases quickly when you add in the fact that we have a fiat monetary system, essentially an inflationary time bomb of monetary destruction waiting to go off.

The most basic question to ask is if this monetary system resembles that of a free society, economy, and people. Huge power over monetary policy is in the hands of the seven unelected members who make up the Board of Governors, which oversees the Fed.

The Fed is not here to create stability for the American people, it is here to ensure stability for government. It is time to reverse the trend and belief that the American people can’t control monetary decisions. Money is power, and that power should not be in the hands of a select few central bankers serving the interests of themselves and the government. That power belongs solely to the individual citizens of a nation, otherwise in the long run it will be abused, expanded, and used as an engine of tyranny.

The Fed deserves no special treatment. Let them be audited, investigated, and open to to public and private scrutiny. Congress and the American people have given them incredible power; a power that, especially if protected and kept secretive behind closed doors, will be destined to bring the country into a time of massive inflation, worthless currency, and great economic and social unrest.

Auditing the Fed is the first necessary step to stripping the outrageous power of an unconstitutional central bank and currency. Can you imagine what the founding men of our nation would say about secrecy in places of such importance and power? Secrecy in government leads to suppression of truth and the birth of tyranny. It is imperative that we once again realize the dangers of mixing secrecy and power.

“History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit and violent means possible, to maintain their control over governments, by controlling money and its issuance.” – James Madison

“Let me issue and control a nation’s money, and I care not who writes its laws.” – Amschel Rothschild

“Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies. Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed.” – Barry Goldwater

Share/Bookmark

Did we even have a complete correction in 2000? With a central bank making the calls of monetary policy, I’ve realized that we cannot know whether the correction was actually sufficient enough to clear out all the malinvestment and bad management decisions. Think about it: interest rates were sharply lowered, credit was injected into the economy, and before too long the economy was back on its feet again (thanks in part to the new housing bubble). Just because the recession may have been weakened by the Federal Reserve’s intervention, it doesn’t mean that it wouldn’t have negative consequences later on. In a true free market where the market would control money and credit, this would be much easier to analyze. We do not have that convenience though, because we have to live with and analyze the actions of the select, unelected few who call the shots.

I bring this up because we obviously do still have market forces at work. Despite regulation, intervention, and manipulation on the part of the government and Federal Reserve, the underlying powers of the market do not disappear for good. Today the stock market has been sent to levels prior to the correction of 2000, and I can’t help but speculate that part of this is because investors are starting to understand more deeply the consequences of credit manipulation from the Fed, as well as an inflationary monetary system.

Over time, we as a nation have subscribed to the Keynesian belief in economics that you must spend and inflate your way out of economic hardships. This is the root of our largest problems today. Some of the key principles of capitalism are saving and investment, but over the past century we have gotten the mindset that it is the government’s responsibility to manage and influence the economy. It is this belief in inflation and debt financing that has caused us to get so overwhelmed by a correction that is beyond the hands of government and central planners.

What if, by lowering interest rates to artificial lows in 2000, Greenspan prevented, or rather delayed, areas of the market that didn’t fully correct? What if providing such cheap money was one of the primary reasons for the largest and most irresponsible bubbles this nation has ever seen? A small group of central planners, if they worked 24/7, could not get close to controlling the marketplace in a more efficient and responsible manner than a capitalist free market. With the key influence of money and credit out of the hands of the consumers and investors, I find it very hard to believe when people blame our problems today on the “free market”.

No matter what political, economic, or social systems are in place, the forces of the free market are always at work. This is why every nation that has tried its way with a fiat monetary system has not lived to see its lasting success. No piece of paper guaranteed by a government and central bank can take the place of gold and silver, the only items consistently and universally accepted as currency in all of human history.

Every attempt at government and central planning is an effort to go against human nature. Capitalism is not about “greed” as many have made it out to be. Capitalism is the only economic system that supports, rather than discourages, the profit motive. Capitalism is a consumer driven economy, which leads to lower prices and higher quality products. In a true free market capitalist society the regulation of the market, not the government, is unleashed in full force. The ability of free choice and individual responsibility will outweigh any government bureaucracy’s ability to regulate.

The government and Federal Reserve do their best to limit individual responsibility and ability. Over the past year we have been forced to bailout massive corporations and essentially the whole government-managed banking industry. If these were such pressing matters, why not leave it up to the people to decide whether or not these corporations were “too important to fail” and deserved money of which they had earned not one penny? If it was such a pressing matter, there was nothing stopping people from sitting down and writing a check for the Treasury to distribute to its banking buddies.

We have lost the ability to make our own decisions with our money. Talk about taxation without representation: over the past year, the Treasury Secretary and Federal Reserve Chairman (formerly Hank Paulson, now Tim Geithner and Ben Bernanke), two unelected officials, have handed out trillions of taxpayer dollars. This past December, former president George W. Bush ordered an “emergency” bailout of the auto industry. Rather than let these mismanaged auto businesses fail, reorganize, and come back as a stronger entities, the taxpayers are being forced to pay the bill for stupid mistakes made by the businesses. In other words, if we decide to not buy their crappy vehicles, we’re forced to bail them out with our taxpayer dollars.

The regulatory abilities of the free market are starting to rev their engines. The monetary dictatorship of the Federal Reserve cannot manipulate credit and destroy the value of the currency without serious repercussions. Bailing out failed and irresponsible business decisions won’t eliminate the problems of mismanagement and malinvestment. Nationalizing industries will not lessen the pain felt by the consumer during this economic crisis, nor will increased regulations.

Countless times our officials have gone with short-term solutions that ignore the laws and history of economics. They go for the route of more government intervention and involvement in the economy. Many people today can’t comprehend a system where the government wasn’t responsible for getting the economy out of a recession. Somehow people fail to see that this is not a problem caused by lack of spending, but lack of saving. It’s pretty simple: Congress encouraged businesses to hand out irresponsible mortgages that they knew people couldn’t afford, people took these irresponsible mortgages they knew they couldn’t afford, and both sides of the party went deeply into debt. But rather than take the signals of the recession that we need to cut back on spending and increase our savings, the government has gone on a spending rampage in the past year, the likes of which the world has never seen. Not to mention that this is money we do not have, which only means it will come through more borrowing and inflation of the dollar.

The free market has been put off and suppressed for a good amount of time now. However, like I said, its forces can and will never completely disappear. Human nature, common sense, and the yearning for individual responsibility will eventually outwit and overpower all regulatory and deceitful agencies keen on destroying those very principles and natural laws. History shows there are no exceptions.

Share/Bookmark

I cannot pretend to understand everything about the Federal Reserve; far from it. One may wonder if such a complex system was purposefully put into place to confuse and discourage people from fully understanding the system. When Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act into law in 1913, the U.S. was still on a gold standard. The currency was backed by a physical commodity, rather than a plain faith-based system like we have today.

The Founding Fathers greatly understood the dangers of paper, or fiat, money systems. They dealt with it firsthand during the Revolutionary War with the Continental Dollar. The Continental Dollar was established by the Continental Congress in 1775, and it was nothing more than worthless paper and collapsed in a matter of years after runaway inflation. This was the primary reason why these words were put in Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution of the United States:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; [...]

The gold standard was not put in the most important document of the U.S. by accident or coincidence. The gold standard was and still is necessary for the same reasons: it holds the powers-that-be back from the incredible power of wildly expanding the money supply (monetary inflation that leads to a worthless currency and a wiped out middle class), gold and silver have been accepted as currencies worldwide for thousands of years, whereas fiat money systems have been tried countless times throughout history and failed every time.

In short, after the Fed was created, the gold standard was attacked bit by bit through 1971. Franklin Roosevelt issued executive orders confiscating many forms of privately owned gold, greatly expanded the Federal Reserve’s scope and power over money and the economy, and devalued the relation of gold to the dollar from $21.67 to $35.00 per ounce. All of these acts were in the name of stopping the Great Depression, but they only led to handing more secrecy and sheer power to central planners.

The gold standard was phased out over the next 30 years, and the power given to the Federal Reserve continued at a consistent pace. Legal tender laws were enacted, making Federal Reserve Notes the only legal currency in the U.S. In 1971, the dollar became a complete fiat monetary currency and lost all ties with gold. This is the system that we have today.

What’s interesting is seeing what’s happened with the dollar through all of these changes. Let’s start with the 100 years before the creation of the Federal Reserve (these are inflation numbers as reported by the Historical Statistics of the United States and Statistical Abstracts of the United States):

Between 1813 and 1913, the purchasing power of $1.00 actually increased to $1.76.

From 1913 to 2007, the purchasing power of $1.00 decreased to $0.05.

Do you think that these facts are merely coincidence? Let’s break these statistics down a little more.

From 1913 to 1971, when we had the Federal Reserve and at least some connection to a gold standard, the purchasing power of $1.00 decreased to $0.25.

From 1971 to 2007, with a fiat monetary system under the Federal Reserve, the purchasing power of $1.00 decreased to $0.19.

This means the purchasing power of the dollar actually decreased more than twice as quickly under a fiat monetary system, than with the minimal gold standard the U.S. had between 1913 and 1971. The Federal Reserve has managed to delay corrections by artificially lowering interest rates, but all of this comes at a price. How big? We can’t say. Tinkering with interest rates and credit cannot solve a crisis, and this will be a difficult lesson we’ll have to learn due to the incompetence of a select few who secretly control every aspect of money and credit in this nation.

Share/Bookmark