저자: PeterSchiff · 외국인
요약 보기
연준은 1913년 설립된 세 번째 중앙은행으로 역사상 가장 해로운 기관이며, 금본위 폐지 이후 달러는 가치 없는 연준 채무로 전락했다. 헌법상 연방정부는 화폐 발행 권한이 없어 연준은 사실상 사기업 성격이라 주장. 연준 의장이 달러 가치 논의를 회피하는 것은 부당하며, 차기 연준 의장(워시) 체제에서도 저금리·통화 증발이 계속되어 금 가격 상승과 종이화폐 압박이 이어질 것이라고 전망.
다듬은 글
So, we were always on the gold standard. All the Federal Reserve notes were redeemable in lawful money, gold. But in order to issue the Federal Reserve note, they had to be 100% back by another form of commercial paper, a note from another bank, and 40% gold. High quality notes. What is the Federal Reserve note back by now?
Nothing. It's it's it's got lower quality than any of the notes that were in circulation prior to 1913. So instead of a superior note, it's a lousy note. I mean, think about how ridiculous it is that the guy who's in charge of our monetary policy can't talk about our money. And the idea if he believes in price stability, what is price stability?
It has to do with the purchasing power of our money that he says he can't talk about. So again, the idea that a Fed chairman can't talk about our money. According to Peter Schiff, the true problem is much more complicated than short-term headlines about interest rates or inflation. He contends that the fundamental basis of contemporary money is a deeper issue.
According to him, the United States used to have a system in place where money was linked to actual tangible value, particularly gold, which served to uphold discipline and prevent excessive growth. However, that link has been severed today, bringing long-term hazards along with far more freedom in the creation of money.
According to Peter Schiff, contemporary fiat money, especially the US dollar, is dependent on central bank policies such as money printing, low interest rates, and ongoing involvement rather than being backed by tangible assets. According to him, this system eventually reduces the purchasing value of money and promotes excessive spending.
Because of this, Schiff constantly emphasizes gold as a more reliable store of value, contending that measures intended to boost the economy frequently wind up boosting gold prices while exerting pressure on paper money. . The Federal Reserve Act was passed in in 1913. So, prior to 1913, there was no Federal Reserve.
Now, it wasn't that there were no central banks. There actually were. The Federal Reserve is not even the first central bank we had. It's the third. And it should have been three strikes, you're out. Because this is the worst of the three. And it's also been around the longest, which is the biggest problem.
This central bank has been around for more than a hundred years. The first two only lasted about 20 years each. Unfortunately, the Fed has been around for more than five times as long. That's that that's the problem. But the first central bank we had I think started around 1791ish something like that I don't know kept I think and it lasted about 20 years that's it then they charted another one the second bank a lot more people are familiar with that one that one lasted about 20 years but that one was ended by uh uh um Andrew Jackson and that was the best thing that he did as president was kill the second central bank of the United States.
Then it was about 80 years between the second central bank and and the Fed, the third central bank. And those were probably the best 80 years we had as a country. I mean, not counting the Civil War, right? So, the Civil War was probably the worst four or five years we've had, right? We were having a war with each other, right?
But after the Civil War ended, 1865, we didn't have a Fed and we didn't have a Fed until 1913, just before the the uh the sec the first world war. But for all those years, the country had no central bank at all. And that's when we had the greatest economy. Even Donald Trump talks about how great our economy was in the 1880s, 1890s, 1900.
One of the reasons it was great was because we didn't have a central bank. We had sound money. We were on the gold standard. Uh and we had the industrial revolution. We had this huge economic boom, the guilded age, all this great stuff. All the immigrants that were pouring into the country, they came in when there was no central bank.
We would be better off without a central bank. Now, why after 80 years of economic success did they resurrect the central bank for the third time? Because the reasons that they gave have nothing to do with the Federal Reserve we got now. In fact, had somebody proposed back in 1913 the current Federal Reserve, it never would have been enacted, nobody would have been dumb enough to buy it.
So what was the goal of the Federal Reserve? Well, there was a I think there were two two or three main main objectives but one was to provide a superior uh bank currency because number one the Federal Reserve was independent. It wasn't part of the government. It wasn't just independent like today. I'm just jumping ahead of myself, but Wars said that yes, the Fed is independent from government, but it's not independent of government or something like that.
That it was part of the government. It's not supposed to be part of the government. That's that was the design. And one of the ways you know this, if you get a letter from the Federal Reserve, it's got a stamp on it. If you get a letter from any government agency, there are no stamps because they get it franked through the post office.
See, if the government sends mail, they don't have to buy a stamp because they own the post office. So, they just send it. But the Federal Reserve has to actually buy stamps from the government. Why? Because it's not part of the government. It's a private banking syndicate. And the reason it's private is because there's no constitutional authorization for it to be part of the government.
Because if you if you read the Constitution, you don't have to understand it. If you read it, the the the US government is not authorized to print money, right? Issue bills of credit. That's paper money. The the states are denied the power to do it. And the federal government is not authorized to do it.
All the federal government is authorized to do is coin money. That's not the same as admit bills of credit. the states, the constitutional article 1, section 10 says no state shall coin money or admit bills of credit. And the only thing article 1 section 8 lets the federal government do is coin money.
They're not given the authority to emit bills of credit. And again, if you understand the constitution, you read the 10th amendment, the powers are denied to the states and given to the federal government. So the states can do anything that they're not prohibited from doing. And the federal government can only do those things that it is specifically authorized to do.
And so the federal government is not authorized to coin money. So is not authorized to print money. So it can't do it. It can take money and put it into a coin. Well, what's money? Well, the only thing that can be money is gold and silver because the constitution says that no state shall make anything but gold and silver legal tender for payment of debt.
and the federal government has not given the authority to make anything legal tender. So it doesn't have it. So it's set up an independent bank to do things that the US government cannot do on its own. So number one, that's why the the Federal Reserve is independent. But one of the main goals was to create a superior bank note to the private bank notes that were already in circulation at the time.
You see, even though we were on a gold standard, banks, private banks all over the country, issued note currency backed by gold. But the problem was, what if I had a note from a bank in Boston and I went out to California and I tried to spend it? How does somebody in California know it's real? He might not know what banks are in Boston.
Maybe it's counterfeit. There was a lot of questions. It was hard, you know, if you took the note far away from where it was issued because, you know, we didn't have these big banks that had branches all over the the country and you didn't even have a telephone, you know, you couldn't validate. I mean, I think we guess they had the telegraph at that time, but but you know, it wasn't as easy to validate if a check was any good, you know, or or a note, not even a check, a bank note, right?
An IOU from a bank. And you know, some of them had dubious quality. You didn't know how much gold actually backed it up, right? Who who the hell knew? So, the idea was to create a Federal Reserve note, a private bank, and the Federal Reserve note would redisount the notes of other banks. So, what would happen is if you had a note from a bank in Boston, instead of taking that note out to California, you would take that note to the Federal Reserve.
you would give it to them and they would substitute their own note. They'd give you a Federal Reserve note. They would take that note and give you a Federal Reserve note. Now, what the Federal Reserve was required to have backing its note was that note plus 40% gold. So, the Federal Reserve had to back each one of its notes with the note of another bank plus have 40% gold backing it up.
Now you take that note, that Federal Reserve note to California and now the California bank recogni who not the bank whoever you give it to. Oh yeah, that's a Federal Reserve note. That's the Bank of the United States. That's our central bank. I recognize that. I'll take that note. And it was supposed to be of higher quality than other notes that didn't have 40% gold backing.
Maybe they had 30% or 20%. But of course, the IOU was 100% redeemable in gold. you could always get gold. So if you had a note for $100, you could get 5 ounces of gold cuz gold was $20 an ounce. So we were always on the gold standard. All the Federal Reserve notes were redeemable in lawful money, gold.
But in order to issue the Federal Reserve note, they had to be 100% back by another form of commercial paper, a note from another bank, and 40% gold. High quality notes. What does the Federal Reserve note back by now? Nothing. It's it's it's got lower quality than any of the notes that were in circulation prior to 1913.
So instead of a superior note, it's a lousy note. Peter Schiff uses historical analysis to support his position. He notes that the Federal Reserve is actually the third central bank in American history, having been established in 1913. That history serves as a warning to him. Given that the central bank's authority and influence over the economy have increased throughout time, he feels that this version of the institution has caused more long-term harm than previous ones.
He contrasts this with prior times in American history when the country did not have a central bank. Strong economic growth, more stable money, and rising prosperity characterized those years. According to Schiff, he attributes the stability to the gold standard which linked money to tangible assets.
According to him, that discipline vanished and the basis of the country's currency weakened after the Federal Reserve became an integral element of the system. Now, let's get back and hear his following words. Now, they did talk about the dollar, right? He got a question about the dollar. And he did say, "Look though, once I'm Fed chair, if you ask me about the dollar, I'm not going to talk about it.
I'm going to I'm going to defer to the Secretary of the Treasury, I'm just going to talk about interest rates." Which again is because he's in charge of monetary policy. And the last I check, the dollar is our money. I mean, think about how ridiculous it is that the guy who's in charge of our monetary policy can't talk about our money.
And the idea, if he believes in price stability, what is price stability? It has to do with the purchasing power of our money that he says he can't talk about. So again, the idea that a Fed chairman can't talk about our money. By the way, our money is not really the dollar. It is the Federal Reserve note.
If you take our money, take a $1 bill, $100 bill, and look at it, what does it say? Federal Reserve note. That's what's written on the dollar. In fact, it's not actually a dollar. It's a Federal Reserve note. We write the word dollar on the note, but the bill itself doesn't say this dollar. It says this Federal Reserve note.
That's what it is. So imagine you're the chairman of the Federal Reserve and somebody asks you a question about Federal Reserve notes and you say, "I'm not allowed to talk about Federal Reserve notes." Well, they're your notes. They're your liabilities. How could you not talk about your own notes? Nobody other than me bothers bothers to question the idiocy of that statement.
The Federal Reserve, the chairman of the Federal Reserve can't talk about Federal Reserve notes. He can't talk about the value of Federal Reserve notes. He can't talk about the purchasing power of Federal Reserve notes. Somehow he's handcuffed. He, you know, and the only one that can talk about it is the Secretary of Treasury.
Where the hell is that written? [clears throat] You think it says in the Federal Reserve Act that if you ask the chairman of the Federal Reserve about Federal Reserve notes, he can't talk about them. He has to keep his mouth shut and say, "No, no, no. We can't discuss our notes." Nope. Nope. Go talk to the secretary of the Treasury.
Ask him about our notes. Don't ask me. I It is It is complete ridiculous. But this is what happened because they don't want him to talk about it because they want the Secretary of Treasury who can't do anything, right, to just say we believe in a strong dollar. We have a strong dollar policy. Well, without the Fed, you have no strong dollar.
Only that it's just so so ridiculous. But he did say that a strong dollar was good for the Fed. It's good for the country because it helps us achieve our mandate. Yeah. You know, if the dollar is being destroyed, if the dollar is being debased, it makes it impossible for them to achieve their mandate.
So Walsh was also asked if he agreed with Trump or disagreed about what's happening with Pal and the lawsuit over uh the the cost of the you know the Fed uh you know the the the building. No comment. Doesn't want to comment. Says he's not a lawyer. Hey I I I you know I I didn't take a course in law.
I mean come on. I mean he said the same thing you know he said you know about Fed independence about Lisa Cook. He was asked to comment about Lisa Cook and you know do you think it's does the president have the authority uh to fire her and if he can what will that do about Fed independence because he mentioned the fact that he thinks Fed independence is really really important and it's you know one of the things he really believes in so he's asked well if the president can just fire uh you know an FOMC member do you think that is a problem for Fed independence he goes well you know I I really can't say you know and it's like well what's your opinion?
He goes, well, you know, whatever the Supreme Court decides, you know, I'm I because I don't you know, I didn't I might have taken one class on the Constitution, but you know, I didn't take enough classes to to really understand it, right? Because, you know, it's written in Chinese, so who the hell knows what the Constitution means.
So, like, I can't even answer that question because I'm not a constitutional scholar, you know? I'll just defer to whatever the Supreme Court says. I mean, what you know, but of course, yeah, I know he's probably instructed, look, the guy's gonna get rubber stamped. He's gonna get approved because the Republicans control the Senate and the Republicans are scared shitless to do anything anti-Trump because, you know, though Trump has lost a lot of his supporters, he hasn't lost them all.
He still has a core group. In fact, I think he's retained more supporters than he's lost. Peter Schiff contends that the Federal Reserve's financial communications are fundamentally flawed. He draws attention to what he perceives as a paradox. Although the Fed is in charge of monetary policy, its chair frequently refrains from discussing the value of the dollar directly, instead referring such inquiries to the Treasury.
This, in Schiff's opinion, is nonsensical since the Fed essentially controls the purchasing power of money, which is the topic of discussion. He links this notion to the idea of price stability, contending that preserving money's purchasing power is what constitutes true stability. Regardless of what official indicators indicate, the Fed is failing at its mission if the value of money is declining.
According to Schiff, this reluctance to discuss the dollar in public is deliberate since admitting its collapse would reveal more serious issues with the system. He berates decision makers for reiterating terms like strong dollar policy while ignoring the part played by central bank policies like money creation and lowinterest IDs which in his opinion gradually devalue the currency.
Schiff is pessimistic when it comes to future leaders like Kevin Worsh. He acknowledges that there might be worse options, but in the end he doesn't think anything will change. He believes that any next Fed chair would probably follow the same course, which includes depending on stimulus programs, keeping interest rates artificially low, and increasing the money supply. .
Comments 0