View Full Version : Can Rand Paul End the Fed?

11-06-2014, 06:48 AM
We just got a new Congress that put Republicans in the drivers seat. Should Rand Paul get elected president he will have a beautiful, once in a generation chance to change this government.

We Paulites had dreams once. We wanted to abolish the IRS. We wanted to drastically cut away at the government, eliminating the Departments of Energy, Commerce, Interior, Education, etc... Change things over at the DEA and the FBI. Cut down the military and change our policy overseas. But nothing united us quite like our desire to End the FED.


Over the years, we've learned to compromise on our dreams. We've been told over and over what we cannot do. That we need to put our faith in a process of gradual change that seems to move at a snails pace, and has yet to yield any concrete results. And now finally we may be seeing a chink of light at the end of that very long tunnel.

After all of that waiting, all of the money and time and grassroots support we've given to this movement, I think it wouldn't be unreasonable for us to demand this one thing.

So can Rand kill the beast?

11-06-2014, 06:53 AM

11-06-2014, 08:55 AM
Honest answer? No way. It would not be allowed to happen. But I hope he can get some reforms through, help educate the public, and maybe we can do it down the line.

11-06-2014, 10:05 AM
The real question will be what kind of audits can he pass.

r3volution 3.0
11-06-2014, 12:23 PM
Abolish the Fed? No, not in a first term anyway. Politically impossible.

Reform the Fed? I think it *might* be possible to eliminate the Fed's power to conduct open market operations - so that inflation would stop and interest rates would be determined by the market. But the Fed would have to be left as a lender of last resort and a central clearinghouse. That would be a huge improvement, and would solve most of the problems created by the Fed, yet it would be less radical than complete abolition (and hence more easily achievable).

However, the most likely change we'd see in a Rand administration IMO would be a change of personnel. Rand would appoint an uber-hawk as chairman, to make sure that the Fed's inflationary powers don't get used. at least for a few years - rather than trying to legally eliminate those powers. This could be a stepping stone, though, to legislation to reform the Fed.

11-06-2014, 01:56 PM
I legitimately think it will take decades. It has to be an intellectual revolution. Economists have to change their way of thinking. It's politically impossible. Austrians tend to have a bad streak in explaining their economic model. A few here or there are good, but most modern austrians are nothing compared to the previous thinkers.

11-06-2014, 02:14 PM
Right now they can't even get an audit of the Fed. I think I will agree with Ron Paul on this issue when he says that the Fed's own bad policies will be their undoing.

Matt Collins
11-06-2014, 04:39 PM
The first step is getting a recorded floor vote on an audit of the Fed..... it likely won't pass, but at least we'll know who is for / against it so that we can begin to apply pressure / target them next election.

11-06-2014, 04:54 PM
I think he should focus on getting rid of the Fed's dual mandate. That is actually very doable and has a lot of support from the academic establishment. Also updating the Fed's charter would make sense. He could reemphasize that the Fed's primary role should be to provide liquidity in banking panics and then copying Milton Friedman's idea about how the grow the money supply or some other rules based policy also has a lot of support already.

Natural Citizen
11-06-2014, 04:55 PM
Honest answer? No way. It would not be allowed to happen.

I'd agree with taft. I'm not going to type out why all over again again but some of the reasons I had mentioned in a similar thread here... http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?462566-audit-the-fed-now&p=5692695&viewfull=1#post5692695

I'll tell you what is interesting, though. CIA seems to be getting into the mix...

Senator and CIA Insider Accuse Federal Reserve of Covering Up Secret Bankruptcy (http://moneymorning.com/ext/articles/rickards/secret-bankruptcy.php?iris=252776&utm_source=taboola&utm_medium=referral)

Aside - Here’s Why the Market Could Crash–Not in Two Years, But Now (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/09/heres-market-crash-two-years-now.html)

So we factor in the discussion in those couple of links and place it into context with what I was saying over in the other thread with regard to incomplete or less than thorough analysis that serves as a schematic for some of the folks that want to stimulate the notion of an audit and we see why it simply wouldn't be allowed to happen. Well...that's assuming that they actually went back and built a more thorough analysis to serve as a schematic for an audit. One that would contain the relevant terms of controversy.

I'm probably going to pee on some cheerios here but the fact is that we can treat campaigns and whatnot as little "games" but it won't work if we try to carry that model over to actual legislation. Those aren't games to be played to create illusions or whatever. You're either going to be thorough when analysing the requirements for an honest to goodness audit or you're not. And if you're not then there won't be an honest to goodness audit. So we have to be real here.