American central banks were killed twice before the 1913 resuscitation in that gave us the Federal Reserve. Largely, the central banks were abolished because so many Americans were farmers and small businessfolk who understood economics and because the Democrats then represented such small folk, protecting them from the monied interests. Somewhat, anyway. The last time, it was President Andrew Jackson versus the bankers. Jackson won claiming that the bankers had tried to kill him, and the country proceeded without a central bank. Such exist only to enrich bankers and to fund government; they aren’t necessary in any sense.,
As a result, the United States managed without a central bank — only ordinary banks — until 1913, when Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, accepted the bankers’ help to be elected President and join WWI. The price of that help was creation of the Fed. He is quoted later saying that, thereby, he had ruined his country. (Re the Fed, not WWI)
Since then, the Fed has presided over the alteration of the price of a new Chevrolet from the 1937 price of $750 to today’s prices along with the destruction of the world finance system that is failing around us. Ron Paul is correct: the Fed serves the bankers first, the politicians second and the American people, not at all.
Central banks are not only unnecessary, they are destructive in the hands of government, our present economy in point. Our forebears, knowing that, dumped them at every opportunity. Do you really trust the politicians to control your money? Maybe, as a graduate from current public education, you trust them. If so, don’t be offended as the bills come in …
Retired U.S. Representative Ron Paul (Father to current presidential candidate, Senator Rand Paul) was famous for his mantra: “End the Fed! Follow the link for a short, clear explanation.
Folks who managed their own farms or small businesses understood automatically; today’s hirelings and government dependents lack any clue. They aren’t aware that they are being robbed, along with their children and grandchildren whose earnings will repay current government debt, one way or another. God, we are warned, is not mocked. But we have to die to be sure; we know with more immediate certainty that the bank is not mocked.
If a clue will help, ask why pre 1970, even working class moms were usually housewives while now, on the wealthy enjoy that condition …
Ron Paul pere asked another useful question: Why is the U.S. going broke and attracting attacks from Middle Eastern folk over affairs in that part of the world? Why don’t we just maintain adequate self-defense and let the rest of the world manage its own affairs? Limit ourselves to mutual defense as appropriate?
U.S. and European meddling created the Iranian theocracy, destabilized the Arabs and provided ISIS. Never mind Viet Nam and Afghanistan, where the costs in lives and treasure are plainer than any resulting progress. After all that, what has America to show for it? Unpaid bills and opportunistic politicians aiming to increase them.
Representative Ron Paul was rather isolated in Congress; he didn’t attract the monied interests. We suppose that K Street lobbyists paid him little heed. That likely has much to do with the current direction of the country, seems to us. We wonder how it would be had we listened to him.
Son Rand Paul is doing much better as a politician than did his father, Rand is already a presidential candidate. On the other hand, father Ron clearly represented the American people, whatever that cost him. And as well, he represented a different generation of Americans with different values and attitudes. Perhaps we’re just reflective of our origins, but we suspect that the differences between Ron and Rand Paul may help to explain the difference in the U.S. economy, then and now. Still, today Rand is thought conservative, more or less. More, we suppose, of you are young; less if you are older.
And that probably explains a lot, though it doesn’t seem likely to help much.