FLBear5630 said:
historian said:
Obviously it would have to be done properly and there would have to be regulations to keep the crooks out of it. And yes, I know that's doubtful but fine would argue that it's no different than what we have now. The crooks arguably control the Fed and they are partly responsible for our current mess. In reality, Congress is mostly responsible for our current problems. They are mostly liars & crooks, or seem to be, and have no desire to clean up the mess. Or they cannot be trusted to clean it up. If they replaced it with something different we don't know if it would be any better.
There are no easy answers. Understanding the problem is the first step in fixing it. Right now, too few people understand it or even aware that it is a problem.
Personally, I see both sides of the issue and I don't have all the answers. I do believe something needs to be done.
"Obviously it would have to be done properly and there would have to be regulations to keep the crooks out of it."
This is the crux of the problem. Done properly with regulations. Well, they thought the Fed was done properly and the regs were added to keep the crooks out and from bilking regular people. So, what is the difference between this and reforming what we have?
Historian wants to go back to Anderw Jackson days and have no central control. Good luck. You guys keep referencing the 1800's as your model. The 1800's economic and monetary policies worked so well that we had a civil war. After that it worked so well Roosevelt had to establish a civil service and regulate business. Because things were so honest and good.
What we have in place is there for a reason, they address real problems. The fact the Congress has punted its job of passing laws and regulating spending, as well as the Executive Branch not enforcing the laws we have on the books, IS the problem. Solving that is the issue, not going back to 1842.
Don't put words in my mouth. I never indicated I wanted to backtrack 200 years. In fact I explicitly said that I see both sides of the argument and I'm undecided on what should be done.
Economic policies by themselves did not cause the Civil War. There were multiple causes, most of much greater significance: the South insisting on keeping the antiquated & un-American practice of slavery, industrialization in the north & southern rejection of all that that entails, growing militarism & radicalism in the south, increasingly bitter debates about expansion (especially the expansion of slavery), sectionalism, etc.
The civil service was created in the late 19th century under the Pendleton Act, before either Roosevelt was president. And it was created by Congress.
My vision of capitalism is keeping government out as much as possible. A hands off attitude (lassez faire). Like Adam Smith, I recognize that government does have a proper role but it should not be in control over any significant portion of the economy. The politicians and bureaucrats simply cannot be trusted with that power. They constantly prove that. This is where regulations come into play. Government regulators should not be taking sides or trying to dictate outcomes. They do that all the time & it's the source of many injustices & much corruption.
Regulations should aim to create a level playing field so that everyone has a chance and the results are devised by the market, meaning the people. Instead of creating new regulations all the time they should spend as much time getting rid of old regulations. No government agency should have its own enforcement mechanisms, the ability to impose fines, its own court system, its own military apparatus, etc. Too many of them have one or more of these & it is scary. These are major sources of oppression & injustice. This should be common sense in a republic.
