Is it counterfeiting when government-licensed banks create money out of nothing: Above all the role of the Government, its limits, and the way that it is carried out must be understood before diving into the murky depths of the Governments relationship with the Federal Reserve. The founding fathers were Classical Liberals. However, the term Liberal should not be confused with the social Marxists that now use the term. As a matter of fact modern Liberals are the exact opposite of what the founding fathers were. The founding fathers stood for private property, freedom of speech, and minimal Government. In the founding fathers eyes Government should do little more than provide protection against threats to the people (foreign or domestic),
…show more content…
You may respond with “ Because they wouldn't be licensed to do so” or “ money would become worthless if everyone had their own way to make it” If you responded with either of those points you prove my points even more! You are correct! Money will become worthless if a bank creates money out of nothing with nothing to back it …show more content…
Based on personal research I found that the main argument against the Gold standard is that the value of the currency is underpinned by a slower gold and silver standard. Along with this statement they state that the Federal reserve has a greater ability to control the currency and lessen the shock of economic collapse. They cite the bailouts of the 2008 housing crisis as an example. They fail to observe that it was in fact the Federal Reserves meddling with the money supply and interest rates that caused the collapse. Generally when you research why we may need a central bank the argument that comes up most often is we need a central bank for bailouts and to soften financial crash, but they still fail to report that it is normally the Fed's fault that the economy crashes. There are two more questions I would like to ask the reader. First “If there was a man, who had a printing in his backyard got licensed by the Government to create money, but he only did so to help his friends and himself, is that morally justifiable?” and if it isn't how is the Federal reserve any
You may respond with “ Because they wouldn't be licensed to do so” or “ money would become worthless if everyone had their own way to make it” If you responded with either of those points you prove my points even more! You are correct! Money will become worthless if a bank creates money out of nothing with nothing to back it …show more content…
Based on personal research I found that the main argument against the Gold standard is that the value of the currency is underpinned by a slower gold and silver standard. Along with this statement they state that the Federal reserve has a greater ability to control the currency and lessen the shock of economic collapse. They cite the bailouts of the 2008 housing crisis as an example. They fail to observe that it was in fact the Federal Reserves meddling with the money supply and interest rates that caused the collapse. Generally when you research why we may need a central bank the argument that comes up most often is we need a central bank for bailouts and to soften financial crash, but they still fail to report that it is normally the Fed's fault that the economy crashes. There are two more questions I would like to ask the reader. First “If there was a man, who had a printing in his backyard got licensed by the Government to create money, but he only did so to help his friends and himself, is that morally justifiable?” and if it isn't how is the Federal reserve any