Will Ron Paul Be Able To End The Fed?

[admiralsnackbar]

The Fed has, from its inception, been a regulatory body, but I don't understand what you mean by "a money increasing rule that our elected officials cannot use for re-elections."

Care to say more?

[Wild Cobra]

The Fed is too deeply entrenched in the global economy at this point to go away, IMO. I'd say it would take both a revolution and a world war for the Fed to be excised (if you could excise an en y from a country that didn't exist anymore, I mean).

I would say it needed congressional oversight, if congress didn't prove to always be so ed up themselves.

[spursncowboys]

The Fed has, from its inception, been a regulatory body, but I don't understand what you mean by "a money increasing rule that our elected officials cannot use for re-elections."

Care to say more?

sure. producing money that coincided with our inflation rate, and economic growth. This is just a general idea. Like I said before, as long as they start by stripping their newfound powers they (fed) have been given.

[RandomGuy]

'Since the Federal Reserve was created in 1913, the U.S. dollar has lost over 95 percent of its purchasing power"

A precedes B, therefore A causes B.

It is an example of lying by omission.

While an individual dollar has lost "purchasing" power due to inflation, productivity gains have far exeeded the lost value.

The end result is that for any unit of labor, the purchasing power of that unit of labor is greater than it was in 1913.

http://fc43.com/opub/cwc/cm20030124ar03p1.htm

(also found this bit, showing wages adjusted for inflation)
http://pw1.netcom.com/~rdavis2/wagegap.html

A good wage in 1913 was around .75 dollars per hour.

Run the numbers, 95% loss in value = 1/20th the value. Reverse this to find equivalent wages today.

.75*20= 15

Most plumbers these days make more than $15 per hour, and remember, this was a GOOD union wage back then.

If people's wages outpace inflation, isn't that an important point to make, if you are talking about this topic? Why didn't the author of the OP make that point?

[Parker2112]

It is an example of lying by omission.

While an individual dollar has lost "purchasing" power due to inflation, productivity gains have far exeeded the lost value.

The end result is that for any unit of labor, the purchasing power of that unit of labor is greater than it was in 1913.

http://fc43.com/opub/cwc/cm20030124ar03p1.htm

(also found this bit, showing wages adjusted for inflation)
http://pw1.netcom.com/~rdavis2/wagegap.html

A good wage in 1913 was around .75 dollars per hour.

Run the numbers, 95% loss in value = 1/20th the value. Reverse this to find equivalent wages today.

.75*20= 15

Most plumbers these days make more than $15 per hour, and remember, this was a GOOD union wage back then.

If people's wages outpace inflation, isn't that an important point to make, if you are talking about this topic? Why didn't the author of the OP make that point?

1st: nice concise explanation.
2nd: why can't we have both?
3rd: if we could, wouldnt that preclude the contention that this assertion about the FRA is a "lie by omission?"