You're a moron beyond belief, have you EVER read the actual executive order?
The key was that it changed how the money was being created, instead of debt as money, it was actual currency.
abolish the Federal Reserve?
- Thread starter procrastinator
- Start date
You're a moron beyond belief, have you EVER read the actual executive order?
The key was that it changed how the money was being created, instead of debt as money, it was actual currency.
I'm not a lover of central banks, esp. ones that slowly inflate as I've stated. But let's assume for a minute that we had a central bank that only inflated the currency by a few percent a year to match productivity increases. The world would not be such a bad place, would it?
LOL- guess you didn't click the link. It's got EO11,110 right there. Looks like you're the moron for not checking on that. It just goes to show that I'm right when I say that the CTer idiots don't bother to check counter arguments - thanks for proving me right.
Here's another take on EO 11,110-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order_11110
Executive Order 11110 was issued by President John F. Kennedy on June 4, 1963.
This executive order allowed the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, as per delegated authority given to the President by the Thomas Amendment to the Agricultural Adjustment Act, to issue silver certificates against silver bullion.
This order was issued as part of a series of actions that were intended to lessen the strain of the U.S. Treasuryâs need of silver and gradually move the United States off of the silver standard. The order was needed due to the passage of Public Law 88-36 which repealed the Silver Purchase Act and other related monetary measures. One result was that after the repeals, only the president could issue new silver certificates. The Federal Reserve could replace them, but only in larger denominations. The thrust of the order returned the authority back to the U.S. Treasury to issue new silver certificates and specify denominations. This allowed for the Federal Reserve to distribute and exchange currency at lower denominations that met the growing economic need. The authoritative basis for the order was nullified[citation needed] in 1982 with the passage of Public Law 97-258.
The order was never directly reversed. However, Section 1(j) of Executive Order 10289, which was added by Section 1(a) of Executive Order 11110, was revoked when Ronald Reagan signed Executive Order 12608 in 1987.[1]
That is the summary of the order written by someone else. I know, it's tough to figure that out without basic reading comprehension & logic, but if you have ever actually read any laws/regulations/orders, you would recognize that fact from the first sentence. This summary makes a few assumptions & opinions, hence making it biased.
Stop trying to debate the issue, you could not exercise critical thinking if your life depended on it. People like you are the reason why blatantly corrupt presidents & puppets get elected.
I stand by what I said, you never read the actual order, even though a part of it was in the link you provided. Believe whatever you want, it's in my benefit that you stick to your current viewpoint.
You mean this first sentence?
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=59049
Executive Order 11110
June 4th, 1963
AMENDMENT OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 10289 AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE PERFORMANCE OF CERTAIN FUNCTIONS AFFECTING THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
So 11110 amends 10289, right?
EO 11,110 gives no new powers to issue silver certicicates. The power to issue silver certificates existed since the Ag Adjustment Act of 1933. All it did was give the responsibility back to the Treasury Dept after the repeal in 1963 of the Silver Purchase Act of 1933 put the responsibility on the Prez. 11,110 was nothing more than delegation of responsibilities.
But I'm sure you'll say that i can't understand the E.O., so why don't you point out for me where 11,110 gives new power where none existed before.
You can't cuz it's a lie, and fools like you suck 'em up like a Hoover Deluxe...
As I have said, you could not exercise critical thinking if your life depended on it. That's why you constantly quote opinions of OTHERS, who support your personal bias. I think even if someone drew a diagram, you would still find a way to refute it and then insult everyone who did not agree with you.
You are a perfect example of a total sheep, who even with the information in front of you manages to ignore it or contrive it into the propaganda fed to the masses.
Let's do this, you label me as a conspiracy looney and I put you on ignore.
Ok then, let's get your opinion-
1- The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 gave the Prez the authority to issue silver certificates. Agree or disagree?
2- The Silver purchase Act of 1934 also gave the authority to issue silver certificates to the Treasury Sec. Agree or disagree?
3- The repeal of the Silver Purchase Act in 1963 therefore took away the authority for the Sec of Tr to issue SC. Agree or disagree?
4- EO 11,110 gave the authority to issue SC back to the Sec of Tr. Agree or disagree?
Interesting comments about the gold standard:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard
The return to the gold standard is supported by Objectivists, followers of the Austrian School of Economics, and many libertarians.
It is generally[attribution needed] opposed by the vast majority of governments and economists, because the gold standard has frequently been shown to provide insufficient flexibility in the supply of money and in fiscal policy, because the supply of newly mined gold is finite and must be carefully husbanded and accounted for.[citation needed] [dubious â discuss] However the opposite is also believed. The paper money printed based on the finite amount of gold will go up in value as it becomes more rare. This explains why at one time in the United States you could pay for milk and bread in pennies as opposed to several dollars today.
Few economists[attribution needed] today advocate a return to the gold standard, other than the Austrian school and some supply-siders. However, many prominent economists are sympathetic with a hard currency basis, and argue against fiat money, including former US Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and macro-economist Robert Barro. The current monetary system relies on the US Dollar as an âanchor currencyâ which major transactions, such as the price of gold itself, are measured in. Currency instabilities, inconvertibility and credit access restriction are a few reasons why the current system has been criticized. A host of alternatives have been suggested, including energy-based currencies, market baskets of currencies or commodities; gold is merely one of these alternatives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard
The return to the gold standard is supported by Objectivists, followers of the Austrian School of Economics, and many libertarians.
It is generally[attribution needed] opposed by the vast majority of governments and economists, because the gold standard has frequently been shown to provide insufficient flexibility in the supply of money and in fiscal policy, because the supply of newly mined gold is finite and must be carefully husbanded and accounted for.[citation needed] [dubious â discuss] However the opposite is also believed. The paper money printed based on the finite amount of gold will go up in value as it becomes more rare. This explains why at one time in the United States you could pay for milk and bread in pennies as opposed to several dollars today.
Few economists[attribution needed] today advocate a return to the gold standard, other than the Austrian school and some supply-siders. However, many prominent economists are sympathetic with a hard currency basis, and argue against fiat money, including former US Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and macro-economist Robert Barro. The current monetary system relies on the US Dollar as an âanchor currencyâ which major transactions, such as the price of gold itself, are measured in. Currency instabilities, inconvertibility and credit access restriction are a few reasons why the current system has been criticized. A host of alternatives have been suggested, including energy-based currencies, market baskets of currencies or commodities; gold is merely one of these alternatives.
i dont know what trailer park community college you droped out of but the stagflation of the late 1970s was predicted by the monterist and vindicated these ideas you speak off.
milton friedman spoke of controlling the money supply by raising it in a constant level in relation to growth... further more the definition of inflation is ideologically debated because of the idea of a "real balance effect" which keynes excluded from his model and has major ramifications to the effects of artificially lowering interest rates including the ones that the fed has direct control of..
go to a library of a major research university and there are hundreds and hundreds of books interpreting the classical model also called the dynamic model and the keynes is-lm model which has been discretited... graduate programs on economics do not teach the is-lm model.
to summarize.. the classical model assumption of the elasticity of money liquidity prefrence makes the is curve very elastic and the lm curve very steep.. in the keynes model these curves are sloped in the reverse fasion.
also when the money supply is increased aka shifting the LM curve to the right ... the IS curve does not shift... in the classical model the is curve also shift to the right. the classical theory includes the idea of a "real money balance" an economic effect that the value of someones wealth falls when the money supply is increased because prices go up. the notion that wages and price expectations adjust in the medium run does not change the fact someone that has a depreciating liquid asset "cash" and the purchasing power in the world market has been reduced two fold.. domestic inflation and internation appreciation of standard commodities. metals, energy etc.
this notion is in a sense ideological because some people want you to belive that only nominal values are relevant if you are a wage earner and a domestic consumer.. basically the dow jones index will inevitably be priced at 100,000 points but what is 100,000 points in relation to the price of gold / oil, yaun/ euro? obviously if you are an active international trader you can move into the highest yielding bonds but the national account deficit ballons and the average consumer which has no savings is f---kd in terms of real world purchasing power...