Controlling the Fed
Excited about tomorrow’s election? I’m less so after talking to Eric Cantor, R-Va. He seems willing to address only one of what I consider to be the two major economic problems facing our country, and that lessens my enthusiasm.
Unless a political asteroid hits the country tomorrow, Republicans will take at least 39 seats from Democrats and gain control of the U.S. House of Representatives. After the new Congress is seated, the parties will elect their leaders and Cantor likely will win the No. 2 spot as House Majority Leader. He might even upset top dog John Boehner, R-Ohio, to become Speaker of the House.
Just 47 years old, Cantor is a co-author—with Reps. Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., and Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif.—of Young Guns: A New Generation of Conservative Leaders. Elected to the House in 2000, he is currently the minority whip and has an 89 percent rating from the National Taxpayers Union and a 97 percent lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union. Except for his two votes in favor of the $700 billion bank bailout known as TARP, there’s not much for conservatives to dislike about the pro-life congressman.
Republicans like Cantor have talked a lot about dealing with out-of-control federal spending, but they also need to recognize that we have an out-of-control Federal Reserve Bank (our nation’s central bank). Most Americans understand the former problem but not the latter. The Fed’s propensity to destabilize the dollar and the economy is the proverbial “elephant in the room” among conservatives.
When I spoke with Cantor at a political fundraiser last week, I was hoping he would indicate a willingness to pressure the Fed. I asked him what Republicans would do to get the Federal Reserve under control, especially since it has already pumped $1 trillion into the financial system and is poised to create another $750 billion to $2 trillion. Cantor told me that he doesn’t know much about monetary policy and the Federal Reserve, but that he is committed to working on getting fiscal policy (taxes and spending) under control. In other words, he’s ready to work on just half of our economic woes.
I’m sure Cantor is telling the truth about his unfamiliarity with the Fed. The Federal Reserve is a complex bank. Although self-defeating, its primary function is simple to understand: Keep inflation and unemployment low. The Fed’s two main tools are the creation of money out of thin air to pump into the financial system and the withdrawal of money from the system. The subprime mortgage debacle, the stock market crashes of 2000 and 2008, the skyrocketing price of gold, the nation’s pension problems, and the low rates of interest senior citizens are earning on their money are all caused by the Fed injecting massive amounts of money into the economy. These are very basic facts and I’m sure Cantor understands them.
But if Republicans gain power and fail to hold the Federal Reserve accountable, I think the American people will hold Republicans accountable in 2012 or ’14. It’s inevitable that senior citizens and the Tea Partiers soon will figure out that the Federal Reserve is the “other half” of our economic crisis.
And I’d be much more excited about tomorrow’s election if GOP leaders like Eric Cantor were expressing more of a desire to deal with the Fed-induced financial and political tsunamis beginning to form.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top29 Comments to “Controlling the Fed”
Isn’t time to reject the GOP? Libertarians understand the problem of the Federal Reserve Bank.
Report comment to moderator
“ The subprime mortgage debacle, the stock market crashes of 2000 and 2008, the skyrocketing price of gold, the nation’s pension problems, and the low rates of interest senior citizens are earning on their money are all caused by the Fed injecting massive amounts of money into the economy.”
Is this really true? Don’t individuals and legislators bear more of the responsibility than the Fed acting on its own?
Rep. Cantor managed to rub me the wrong way during the TARP debacle, but I can’t bring myself to blame him for not understanding the monetary system we have. I have taken several economics courses and I still can’t say I really understand it well.
Report comment to moderator
Since he was light years ahead of the curve on this, and since he’s the only Republican that really separates himself from the crowd (in a good way), you hafta, hafta, hafta mention Ron Paul somewhere in an article like this.
Report comment to moderator
Kyle A. (#3),
I know I’ve said this to you before, but I’ll say it again.
If we follow your advice, we’ll have another two years of the present machine grinding out their destuctive legislation in Washington D.C.
Ron S.
Report comment to moderator
I know it’s been debated on here before, RONDU, but it baffles me anyone could have any confidence that voting for milquetoast will make things better. We’ve been trying that for for years now, to no avail. Republicans of the mid-90s hastened our getting to this point. Much as we talk up Tea Party sentiment (which is far from monolithic), today’s Republican candidates are giving little indication they’re going to be any different than before.
Report comment to moderator
“today’s Republican candidates are giving little indication they’re going to be any different than before.”
This is true. No politician will ever be able to cut the size of government or even slow its growth significantly. To do so would cause mass protests and burning cars, like in France. What politician wants that on his shoulders? It is so much easier to spend the country into oblivion.
The best thing the voters can do is attempt to keep Washington in permanent gridlock. Every day that Congress fails to do anything is a good day for America.
Report comment to moderator
Xion: Over the last 40 yrs., when have we had an extended period of Congress failing to do anything, i.e., grow govt?
Report comment to moderator
MACRUTABAGA IS RIGHT!
Cantor voted FOR the TARP bailouts? Problem!
OTOH, Cantor co-sponsored Rep. Ron Paul’s HR 1207 last year … VERY GOOD!
If our nation had HONEST MONEY, there is no way our economic AND monetary problems would be so gi-normous!
Do yourself a tremendous favor: Read Ron Paul’s brief –and VERY accessible — End the Fed. It will be the best $10 you ever spend!
Do yourself another tremendous favor: Watch the animated 45-minute film MONEY AS DEBT if you want to understand just what it is the Federal Reserve, and all other central banks, actually do. (I think the solution suggested by the film is bogus, but the problem is stated very plainly!)
And do yourself one last favor: Start saving — NOT “investing” — via precious metals.
Report comment to moderator
MACRUTABAGA (5): Republicans of the mid-90s hastened our getting to this point.
Frank: Not to mention the Republicans of the early oughts … including (especially?) their vaunted, brush-cutting leader from Tejas.
Report comment to moderator
Frank in Spokane: I’m embarassed to say I didn’t realize Cantor co-sponsored HR 1207. In light of that, though, doesn’t this excerpt from Wishing’s article seem strange:
?
Report comment to moderator
There is a lot more to libertarian philosophy than economics.
Boehner claims he understands that things have to be done differently. He will probably have a chance to prove that in the next two years. If he doesn’t, I see a third party, but I don’t think it will embrace libertarianism.
Report comment to moderator
NJLAWYER (11): There is a lot more to libertarian philosophy than economics.
Frank: … she said ominously.
Something tells me you’re not thinking of the non-aggression principle.
If not, then what?
Report comment to moderator
Mac (10):
Yes, I noticed that, too.
Perhaps he co-sponsored out of pure political cynicism?
Report comment to moderator
… by which I meant, maybe his phones were ringing off the hook with calls from supporters of HR 1207 …
Report comment to moderator
Ron, since 1988 I have blindly obeyed the “lesser of two evils” crowd like a silly lap dog. I have now chosen to follow my conscience instead.
NJLawyer, why do people talk of a third party as if one does not already exist. A third party exists, as well as a fourth party, a fifth party, etc.
How many times will we give the guys with the R after their name a chance? I have already done it enough times.
Do I like the current government? Of course not. But maybe a few more years of it will wake people up.
Report comment to moderator
Wishing must have come across some old material from the John Birch Society. Or was is a pamphlet written by Ron Paul? Is there a difference?
Report comment to moderator
And there it is: the Crackpot Dismissal. Didn’t see that one comin’.
Report comment to moderator
@Wishing: The subprime mortgage debacle, the stock market crashes of 2000 and 2008, the skyrocketing price of gold, the nation’s pension problems, and the low rates of interest senior citizens are earning on their money are all caused by the Fed injecting massive amounts of money into the economy. These are very basic facts…
I don’t think those are “very basic facts”, considering a lot of folks (on both sides of the conservative/liberal spectrum) with much deeper grasp of economics than Lee or I disagree that the one caused the others.
Such causation may in fact exist; I’m not making a judgment on that either way. But I feel pretty positive that these various claims aren’t “basic facts”.
Report comment to moderator
@Frank: Start saving — NOT “investing” — via precious metals.
This has always struck me as pretty arbitrary advice. It appeals to our desire to exchange our dollars for some commodity that will retain its value over time.
So why precious metals? Why not oil? Why not non-precious metals, or other commodities?
Why do we think precious metals’ value will remain relatively constant over time? In fact, various metals’ exchange-rates vis-a-vis each other (e.g. silver-to-gold, gold-to-platinum, etc.) have fluctuated pretty broadly over the past 40 years. You would suppose that if each metal had roughly constant value then their exchange rate would stay roughly constant.
If the goal is to protect against a weakening dollar then why not buy shares of an ETF that tracks the inverse of the dollar’s value? Why not buy real estate? Or a real-estate ETF?
Report comment to moderator
Frank in Spokane, thank you for the link about debt as money. I knew it was debt, but did not understand the system as well as I would have liked. I actually do like the solution the film suggests. It could use some work, but there is plenty of historical data showing that the American revolution was driven out of the desire to be free of England’s economic tyranny through its bank system.
Also I like the idea of no taxes, instead just having inflation.
Report comment to moderator
buddyglass (19): So why precious metals? Why not oil? Why not non-precious metals, or other commodities?
Frank: “Why not,” indeed!
I’m a simple man with simple finances. Precious metals are fine for what I need to do at present.
But if one wanted to diversify into commodities on a global/international basis, I would suggest looking into Peter Schiff’s outfit, EuroPacific Capital. I have my IRA in the Central Fund of Canada — another means of investing in precious metals — thru EuroPac.
(Incidentally, when everyone else was blowing sunshine up our kilts, Schiff warned against the impending collapse that occurred in 2008. Just search YouTube for videos with Schiff and you’ll see what I mean. Schiff was also the economic advisor to Ron Paul’s 2008 presidential campaign. If you like Paul on economic and monetary policy, you’ll like Schiff.)
Report comment to moderator
According to some here on the blog, Schiff makes wild and stupid predictions. They didn’t enumerate them or provide evidence of them…
What I’ve seen and read of Schiff makes a whole lot more sense than what I hear coming out of Paul Krugman’s corner. In my opinion, anyone who listens to that “expert” is foolish beyond words.
Report comment to moderator
rsd (16): Wishing must have come across some old material from the John Birch Society. Or was is a pamphlet written by Ron Paul?
Frank: Although we may not always agree on things, RSD, I would have at least expected something more substantive from you than, “John Birch Society … Ron Paul … you’re dumb … I win!”
Perhaps you could actually craft some manner of argument that the Federal Reserve is morally legitimate and fiscally responsible?
Report comment to moderator
” … some old … pamphlet written by Ron Paul … ”
Ron Paul wrote a book just last year on the wicked Fed and the damage it does to the economy. Check it out.
Report comment to moderator
Frank: Schiff has also made some sky-is-falling predictions about the dollar (hyper-inflation) that have totally failed to materialize. I’m tempted to place him in the category of those who always predict doom and by virtue of sheer consistency are occasionally right.
An interesting exercise would be to compare the performance of gold (or other commodities) vs. non-commodity investments (e.g. S&P 500) over the past 40 years. And I don’t mean just comparing the end value to the beginning value. One would want to examine performance over discrete shorter periods. For instance, suppose the investment window is one year. Look at every month from 1970 to now and determine whether, starting with that month, with an investment window of 1 year, would gold or the S&P 500 have been the better investment. Then re-run the same exercise with different investment windows. Say, 2 years, 5 years, 10 years.
I don’t have data at my fingertips, but I think last time I did an exercise like this (I wasn’t as thorough as what I described above) gold didn’t come out looking all that great over the entire period. You have long periods of virtually no activity punctuated by brief periods of huge speculation.
Here’s a spreadsheet with yearly-average prices for various metals along with inflation adjusted 2008 dollars. To the right I computed gold’s value vs. the value of each of the other commodities. For the “2008 USD” column I adjusted based on CPI inflation tables. Based on this gold looks:
* Overvalued vs. its historical inflation-adjusted dollar value.
* Slightly overvalued vs. its historical value in silver.
* About even vs. its historical value in platinum.
* Overvalued vs. its historical value in palladium.
* Undervalued vs. its historical value in copper.
(The above were using the 2009 year-average values in my table- I didn’t recalculate them using current up-to-the-minute prices. Obviously you’d want to look at current value before choosing what to invest in.)
My issue with commodities investing is that a commodity’s “value” isn’t really as constant as one might like to believe. Consider the ratio of gold to silver since 1968. It ranges from 14.1 in 1979 to 94.3 in 1990. And that’s not due to any sort of dollar fluctuation- that’s one commodity compared to another. Value is based on supply and demand, both of which can change considerably over time. So I’m not convinced investing in gold (or other commodities) is any less speculative than investing in stocks or real estate.
Report comment to moderator
“he doesn’t know much about monetary policy and the Federal Reserve”
isn’t it time to amend the constitution to require candidates for congress to take at least an intro econ course?
and pass it with at least a C
Report comment to moderator
The longer Obama remains in office, the more Ron Paul makes sense to me. If Obama is re-elected in 2010 I may very well become an anarchist.
Report comment to moderator
(Pssst, Xion. Ron Paul’s not an anarchist … )
Report comment to moderator
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!