FreedomFest Debate: The Federal Reserve w/ Thomas Woods 5/5

[bearcat648]

Thought this was a debate.

Came to a slaughter.

[bonfirejovi]

the pro fed guys dont even agree with each other. can we get some more competent opponents?

[j1a2r34]

If you believe that you can use gold as legal tender, try paying the IRS with a one ounce gold coin and value it at the price of gold rather than the value printed on it. The IRS will credit you with the printed value even it it's $20 while an ounce of gold might be valued at $1000.

[soulshaker123]

You can always tell when one side knows that they are wrong, because they won't make eye contact. Look at the debate from around 1:00 to 2:20. Tom looks directly at him and tells him his point, while the other guy looks down and away from Tom as he gives it rebuttals. The guy in white knows he's spewing crap.

[asierra1492]

The profed always talk about the "banking crisis" during the 19th century and 1907 so we had to implement a central bank, when in fact we had 2 central banks before the fed during 19th century in which most crisis occured.

[mattgeb84]

those pro fed guys were just making stuff up as they went along

where did they get that crap from

[PresidentRich]

@mattgeb84 Hahaha that's how they usually are.

[Pdrum2]

@mattgeb84 I know right, "it's not true" a 5 year old knows that false

[thomasst2]

Market preference not for gold? WHAT?? I happen to remember FDR taking the countries' gold in 1933. I also happen to remember that the World Bank have regulations stipulating that their members cannot have their currencies backed by gold. How is that free market preference?

[tacitus7]

The point is that contrary to one of the pro fed debaters, we do not need a government to create a currency. A simple weight in gold is all we need. I believe a gram of gold is currently worth $33 dollars more or less. So we may need to price things in 100ths of a gram.

Not rocket science.

p.s. Paper gold certificates would be needed for units of gold less than a tenth and more than an ounce of gold. Gold coins could be minted in tenth, quarter, half and one ounce pieces.

[tacitus7]

I wish Woods and Epstein would have pointed out that dollars, franks, etc. were originally weights in gold! In other words, we do not need governments to give us currencies, just price things in grams of gold for heaven's sake. What was the dollar other than 1/20th an ounce of gold and then 1/35th an ounce of gold when it was devalued by Franklin Roosevelt. Maybe now the dollar is really only 1/1000 or 1/5000th an ounce of gold.

[spanishaustralian]

gene epstein is really very intelligent.

he is a genis.

or perhaps just austrian economics when understood is flawless when cheerleading for freedom..

[Bankingcartel]

Plan A is nullification and Plan B is secession.

[FATToney12]

Ha Ha! Lol.  Perfectly said, BankingCartel.

[Bankingcartel]

Ya, ROFL, but what we need is people that are willing to back that up just as I am.

[gabeh73]

why did the ron paul silver dollar guys get arrested and and the silver was confiscated?

[rumcho]

I don't think it was a good debate. Why? Because the pro-Fed guys on the left came up with the most childish explanations as to why we need the Fed. I mean anything these guys say can be disputed on hundreds of levels with thousands of examples.

[spiggitybap]

Amen. I thought the Fed apoligists were horribly weak debaters. Fallacy upon fallacy.

[rumcho]

The two douchebags on the left got creamed by Tom Woods. They're so full of crap, lol! I guess they thought their audience is a bunch of soccer moms and Joe-Sixpackers, lol.

[Bankingcartel]

Tom Woods is brilliant.

[murphycline]

So the Fed controls the money supply, but it doesn't control the interest rates... WTF.

[djsherin]

I don't like Warren Coats.

[prescottbill]

The FED has been buying mortgaged backed paper from Freddie and Fannie to keep mortgages rates low. They have been buying Tbills and Tbonds to keep government borrowing costs low. The FED does control the rates, through direct actions.

Plus, I am tired of the "$50 trillion is gone" line. The money and credit created during the boom, is still out there it did not disappear. Sure some credit lines have been canceled, but trillions of dollars changed hands when homes were bought.

[rumcho]

Well, it did disappear - the credit was used to buy assets. And the buyers assumed that the asset value doubled so they securitized it at that assumed value and those who paid for the securities lost in the end. In other words, when they talk about $50 trill in wealth destruction it was really $50 trill that never existed to begin with.

The money created did not disappear - that is correct. The bubble did. That's what the $50 trillion is - a bunch of nonsense promises.

[prescottbill]

"The money created did not disappear - that is correct."

That is what I said, the money is still out there. Now the FED has added trillions more. Massive monetary inflation is a fact, how and when it shows up in the marketplace is the question.

The FED is a giant outhouse/cesspool for the banksters to dump their crap loans in, and now Treasury is dumping it's worthless Tbonds there, too. There is no "Superfund" big enough to clean up this toxic mess. Prepare now.

[thomasst2]

Key is people's demand for money (or cash balances), MISTAKENLY called velocity of money.

When desire to consume is high, demand for money is low, or loses value relative to goods and services. People spend, resources are expended and prices rise.

When people save or consume less, demand for money is high, or money has more value relative to goods and services. People save, resources are saved and prices fall.

Money supply is growing, but people are saving. The Fed is trying to prevent it.

[prescottbill]

The government is spending quite a bit, and people are still spending on the basics: food, energy, shelter, etc.. Some of the extras are cut out, so we end up with savings. The FED is trying to get the American economy "high" again by pumping in money like a heroin addict shoots up more heroin. Government spending up, but banks not lending to financially uncertain consumers.

Maybe government and FED should cut a $1,000,000. stimulus check for every household? Sure would be fun! BooYaa!

[thomasst2]

True. The other problem is that the inflation rate and basically every economic statistic published by Govt is completely false and MASSIVELY understated. The "shadowstats" website provides real statistics before Reagan and Clinton changed the way they were calculated. I didn't know until recently ( but I felt it) that we had 18% inflation during the housing boom when Govt reported 6%. The rate is currently 6% when Govt is reporting less than 1.

[ParadiddleMcFlam]

Fund's silliness about a "plan" to get rid of the Fed is like Tom Sawyer's attitude of wanting to "play act" at setting Jim free in Huckleberry Finn. Although Jim had already been freed, Tom engages in all kinds of subterfuges and dramas and when asked why, answers, "Why, I wanted the adventure of it; and I'd a waded neck-deep in blood too..."

[Snoopyloop2343]

Way too short. I was pretty disappointed by this.

[Boethius51250]

I agree. I was really excited to see this and was likewise disappointed that it was so short. It was so short, how could you even call this a debate? They should have called this "4 guys talking who don't completely agree"....

[Snoopyloop2343]

And it was as if John Fund wasn't even pro-Fed. It was two strongly against the Fed, one seemingly on the fence, and Warren Coats, who probably is in favor of the idea of a central bank, but didn't appear very supportive of the Fed currently.

[Boethius51250]

No kidding! And most of time they were speaking, they weren't even arguing for the Central Bank! Tom Woods definitely seemed to be the most focused on the topic of the "debate". Also, the one sweet point that was made in response to "what do you replace the Fed with" was the comment on the Soviet Union. I can just hear it now from a Soviet Apologist "what do you replace the Soviet Union with"? "Therefore, since there is no collective agreement, you should stay silent on it." Right...

[PwndByTheFed]

the one thing that concerns me of gold standard, is that the Rothschilds, and their like, own most of the gold that exists.

[drfutur]

The problem with fiat money is that it is created out of thin air, therefor it is not scarce. By constantly creating those money, you always take part of the wealth from someone else. Thus you have a constant flow of wealth.

Gold is different as it is scarce and you have to work hard to get it.

Remember that money tend to go to those who are most useful in economy.

It is true that Rothschilds will have better start, but money will start to flow to those people who are most useful in the economy.

[PwndByTheFed]

i appreciate your answer instead of the anonymous thumbs down - as if i am against asset based money or something. my concern remains... they have enough to put us in the same situation that was the argument for a FED in the first place. just a little something that i thought needed to be addressed as they would simply smash the economy again and say: "see? we told you needed us!"

[rumcho]

Yeah, this is a possibility but how did they create the Fed in the first place when they didn't have nearly as much gold as [you assume] they do now?

My point is the elite owning all or most gold is not what holds us back from winning the war for honest money, what holds us back is ignorance in the populace. The moment we reverse that trend we'll be on the right track, no matter how much gold the Rothchilds hold. Then people will laugh at their "I told you so" arguments.

[Xasew]

The Fed doesn't determine interest rates? Glut of savings? UTTER NONSENSE.

The global savings rate was LOWER during the housing boom than before it.

[Boethius51250]

lol....exactly...not only was this debate too short, but the Keynesian apologists made absolutely no sense whatsoever!

[MrMP81]

6:56

WTF?!?!?!? I can't believe he said that....

This is really a good debate and I'm glad Thomas said it specifically to say that " No the Fed doesn't do it directly, they lend more money to local banks that the local banks then give at a lower rate so it's indirectly "

[Boethius51250]

Saying that the Fed doesn't control interest rates is like saying "It was not my finger pulling the trigger that killed that person, it was the bullet". If the banks can get money cheaply from the Fed, why would they borrow it elsewhere? Especially when who the Fed loans money to is not available for audit!