Money and freedom
I listen to political documentaries rather than background music to make paperwork move faster. Shaken out of an administrative stupor recently, I heard Comedy Central’s John Stewart interviewing retired Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. The world’s most powerful central banker for nearly 20 years said we don’t have a free market. Americans not free? Whoa, I had to put my American Express report aside and do a rewind.
I was listening to the documentary I.O.U.S.A, which features an excerpt of a Daily Show interview of Greenspan by Stewart. The part of their conversation that hit me like a pot of coffee goes like this:
Greenspan: The more money you have relative to the amount of goods, the more inflation you have and that’s not good.
Stewart: So we’re not a free market then. There’s a benevolent hand that touches us.
Greenspan: Absolutely, you’re quite correct to the extent there’s a central bank governing the amount of money in the system, that is not a free market and most people call it regulation.
It’s stunning that an American leader who wielded so much power over the economy admitted that his office hinders freedom. Greenspan’s candid conversation is tantamount to President Obama telling Stewart that his role is to constrain the freedom of all Americans. Can you imagine the outrage expressed at Tea Parties if that were to happen?
We don’t have public demonstrations over Federal Reserve policy because central banking is a mystery to most Americans. Yet there is a quiet revolution going on: The price of gold broke through $1,300 an ounce last week. Investors are tiring of the Federal Reserve messing with their money and they’re dumping dollars for gold. And it looks like there’s no end to the Fed’s meddling.
As long as we have the Federal Reserve, Americans will not have a free market. What can we do?
Short of abolishing the Fed—which Americans may call for if our economy collapses—we can rein it in through congressional action. As gold was setting new highs last week, Pat Toomey, a Republican U.S. Senate candidate from Pennsylvania, told me that he’d like to see Americans call for reform in the Fed’s dual mission to keep inflation and unemployment low. If the Fed were to focus solely on keeping inflation low and leave job creation to the American people, Toomey thinks we’d be better off even if we don’t achieve a truly free market in terms of our money.
If the Nov. 2 election leads to reform in the Federal Reserve’s mission, I’d feel better . . . but not good. A Federal Reserve chairman admitting that American money is in bondage to the federal government is cause for reform as our economic problems multiply with Fed complicity.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top14 Comments to “Money and freedom”
Lee, you’ve got to take Greenspan’s conclusion at least one step farther. The Fed is nothing but the agency the government has outsourced monetary control to. As long as the government prints the money, the market is not free.
Report comment to moderator
Mountain, meet molehill.
When Greenspan said “it’s not a free market” his meaning was “it’s not a {100%} free market” given there exists some regulation.
Unless you’re an anarchist you don’t support “free markets” in the sense Greenspan meant here, since you support at least some level of taxation in order to support a military and taxation necessarily distorts the market.
EPA makes markets less free.
FDA makes markets less free.
Taxation makes markets less free.
Civil Rights Act makes markets less free.
Anti-trust legislation makes markets less free.
OSHA makes markets less free.
The minimum wage makes markets less free.
Child Labor laws make markets less free.
etc.
etc.
Nobody, Republicans included, wants the market to be “100% free”. Almost everyone supports some restriction of freedom.
Report comment to moderator
@Buddyglass…AMEN! Preach it Brother. The devil is in the details. We all want to be free, and we all want the things that we worry about to be regulated, but not the things that others worry about. The balance is NOT really between Conservatives and Liberals, the real balancing act is between Anarchy and Fascism…the rest of it is simply details…sigh…
Report comment to moderator
Putting a fence up isnt the problem Buddy, it’s when those in control manipulate what goes on inside the fence, that problems arise.
The purpose of the fence is to ensure the market is allowed its freedom. In other words, things like the military, taxation, fighting theft/embezzlement etc.
Those dont distort the market, because it would be spent anyway, and are all well justified in the government in handling.
Where problems arise is when the government decides who gets to play on the merry go round, and who doesnt get to play on the slide. Or that they push everyone onto the monkey bars, until it collapses.
That’s what Greenspan is saying the Fed does now, and that is what Lee is saying is going on. That manipulation of the market means it is not free…not that there isnt a fence. Greenspan should know, he used to be quite involved with manipulating the market.
Report comment to moderator
Given the existence and nature of gov’t you will have interference in the “market”. The question isn’t really how much interference and how to avoid it but rather for whom does the government intervene in the marketplace.
Report comment to moderator
It’s just a lie to say that freedom has any relevance at all to the exchange of goods and services, let alone prosperity. Autonomous people have no needs. Those who have needs submit to bonds of reciprocity when they engage in economic activity. Money doesn’t grow on trees, it arises from obligation and mutual interest. This is what union members acknowledge when they call themselves “brothers and sisters”. Beneficial economic exchange depends on fraternity to harmonize needs and ability, responsibility and reward.
Gold notwithstanding, economic value is as non-preservable as mana, because it must be renewed by continuous exchange. You can’t burry value in a hole in the ground without making God ever so angry, and yourself poorer.
Freedom is a fine and noble thing, in its place, as the exercise of thought in the endeavors of art, religion, and learning. (Things some “free market” absolutists want to make less free, ironically.)
Report comment to moderator
You’re from what planet, Scroop?
Report comment to moderator
How can an article like this be written without mentioning Ron Paul?
Report comment to moderator
If Ron Paul were president, he’d have done away with the Fed. by now.
Report comment to moderator
The fed, board of education, Homeland security, medicare, medicaid, possibly several of the bureaucracies under homeland security, half the military, etc. But on the plus side, our taxes would be cut in half and taxes like the death tax and possibly the payroll tax would be gone, that is, if congress would let him.
Report comment to moderator
moth, you underestimate the role of freedom in exchange – it’s the means to satisfy most ends. all people, autonomous (did you mean like hermits?) or not, have needs. and your ideal of fraternity is a fine and noble thing but we live in the real world of impersonal exchange through the global market.
other than those – you make a very keen observation in paragraph 2: “economic value is as non-preservable as manna, because it must be renewed by continuous exchange. You can’t bury value in a hole in the ground without making God ever so angry, and yourself poorer” – beautifully said too
Report comment to moderator
“for whom does the government intervene in the marketplace”
ooo, let me try this one – for themselves and their rich friends
buddy, we’d be better off without half of the things on your list but I wonder – what would replace the Fed under President Paul
Report comment to moderator
The leader in the campaign to abolish the Fed and our most principled public servant in Congress, Rep. Ron Paul, is nowhere to be found in this article. I must question the author’s credibility.
Report comment to moderator
Reader’s celebrated “real world of impersonal exchange through the global market” is well-illustrated by what Meg Whitman told her undocumented maid:
I don’t know you and you don’t know me.
Medievalists like Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin would have counseled us to promote and expect an ethos of fraternity in our economic dealings, so that the poor don’t have too little and the rich don’t have too much.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!