What system would you replace the Federal Reserve with if you had complete control of the United States?

Crocodylus Acutus

Kool King Kroc
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jan 23, 2024
I feel as though most sensible people would agree that central banking is a construct of Satan, so if hypothetically speaking you could get rid of the Fed and all proponents of it, what would you replace it with? Would you go with a free banking system, like the one the United States had for a time before the Civil War? Or is there another alternative?
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: eatler
I would introduce The Cheddar Standard. With each note backed by cheese stored in government controlled caves, faith and trust could be resumed when shopping with federal bank notes. Each note would read:

"This certifies that there is on deposit in the Treasury of the United States of America X dollars in cheddar payable to the bearer on demand."
 
Honestly just the Gold standard. Each dollar worth an ounce of gold, keep the gold in Fort Knox. I haven't really ever heard anything negative about this, nor can I think of any at the moment.
I second this, but we need 51 currencies for all 51 states and DC. Each state gets one. Maybe NYC can have its own as well.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Crocodylus Acutus
Gold standard coupled with a dollar value pegged to a basket of foreign currencies. A free floating dollar is great when it's strong vs. other currencies, but sucks when it's not. A peg would also manage the trade deficit better than it currently has been, would stabilize the price of oil since nearly every oil contract is settled in dollars, and would stick a finger right in the eye of the chinks who have been playing games with their yuan reminbi pegged to the dollar for decades now.
 
Honestly just the Gold standard. Each dollar worth an ounce of gold, keep the gold in Fort Knox. I haven't really ever heard anything negative about this, nor can I think of any at the moment.
The main limitation is a steady supply of gold, you need enough coming in to support economic growth but not so much it causes inflation. Inflation could be managed by limiting free conversion of gold into dollars but that kind of deflation caused by a gold shortage is very bad for the economy and impossible to get around without debasement or finding new gold sources.

The other limitation is you can't easily expand the money supply if you need to, like in the event of a major war or depression. Also, if the currency isn't freely convertible to gold, for all intents and purposes it'll work like a fiat currency since you're basically trusting the country that their currency is backed by enough gold to redeem all outstanding banknotes.

Of course you could also try other commodities or a basket of them for the currency's backing if a gold standard isn't practical. The Confederacy during the US Civil War was able to keep financing its war effort by selling cotton-backed bonds, they maintained their value until defeat was certain even though the Confederate dollar itself depreciated massively and became almost worthless.
 
I am going to go against the grain a bit and suggest that instead of gold a different metal be used, which is of similar rarity but has industrial applications as a powerful catalyst and is a bit harder and more resistant to tarnishing. Platinum.

But Gold is nice too. Hell, even a Silver Standard would be perfect fine to peg the dollar to match exactly 1/10 of Silver Ounce would be fine.

I literally can never get a straight argument to why these standards were bad other than kvetching that always seems to boil down to "government couldn't directly affect and manipulate the economy".
 
I am going to go against the grain a bit and suggest that instead of gold a different metal be used, which is of similar rarity but has industrial applications as a powerful catalyst and is a bit harder and more resistant to tarnishing. Platinum.
It makes more sense, gold is only more popular due to its long history and how difficult it was to mint platinum coins (and avoid them being confused with silver). But if you're not circulating any specie coins, something like that with more practical uses is a better backing.

The most useful of all is food but that's not very practical.

I literally can never get a straight argument to why these standards were bad other than kvetching that always seems to boil down to "government couldn't directly affect and manipulate the economy".
Really the only other limitation is what I mentioned about the gold supply itself, but if you diversify into a basket of commodities or have a bimetallic system you could get around that. You also need floating exchange rates for a currency with a hard-commodity standard but that's not really an issue, a fixed rate is still difficult to maintain with a fiat currency.
 
It was how things were before the Civil War. It seemed to work fine back then.
True, but the economic situation of modern America is much different than that of pre Civil War America. Not saying it's impossible to implement free banking- in fact I hope it isn't- I'm just curious as to how that would look for us now, and what things would need to change to ensure it's longevity.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Chongqing
I literally can never get a straight argument to why these standards were bad other than kvetching that always seems to boil down to "government couldn't directly affect and manipulate the economy".

Because if economic growth outpaces the rise in gold supply, you get frequently collapsing banks due to deflationary pressures.

If that sounds like gobbledygook:

The basic problem is that all debt is denominated in nominal terms, and debt notes are bank's capital. When banks have to write down too much bad debt, they go insolvent, can't pay off depositors, and shut down.

When unexpected inflation happens, fixed-interest debt becomes easier to pay off. Businesses have an easier time paying off bonds, mortgage payments drop as a share of overall income, etc. Your real wealth is declining, but you don't get a system collapse.

However, the reverse is true of deflation. Fixed-interest debt becomes harder to pay off. As a business's revenue declines due to deflation, it is more and more likely to risk a bond payment. When you get laid off and look for a new job, you discover salaries in your field are down by 10%, so you're going to have a harder time paying your mortgage. All this leads to banks having to write off debt, and too much of that leads to insolvent banks, which leads to banks shutting their doors and people's savings accounts disappearing.

This is how things worked under the gold standard. The country's economy was growing like crazy, but we had frequent boom-bust cycles. The peaks and troughs were a lot lower than they are now, but the chaos and unpredictability is why the Federal Reserve Act was able to get political traction in the first place.
 
Wouldn't Bimetalism solve this by allowing a less rare but still rare metal to make up for the stretches in supply? Gold + Silver or Platinum + Gold would work well.
 
Wouldn't Bimetalism solve this by allowing a less rare but still rare metal to make up for the stretches in supply? Gold + Silver or Platinum + Gold would work well.

Bimetalism is just a form of price controls. The overvalued metal gets used for exchange, while the undervalued metal gets hoarded. You still also have the fundamental problem that the money supply only grows as fast as miners can find money in the ground.

There really isn't an easy answer to this problem. A formula that simply authorizes the Treasury to print or burn X amount of dollars every year based on last year's GDP would make more sense than what we have, though. The problem with the Federal Reserve as we have it now is that it manipulates the money supply to keep the government funded and prevent bad investments from clearing if they would bankrupt the nation's largest banks.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Crocodylus Acutus
Back