Repeal the 17th Amendment Discussion Board member Mike P. posts a large volume of really interesting articles on the discussion board for our group dealing with a variety of topic from the 16th and 17th Amendments, Federal Reserve, and Electoral College to name a few. He has incredible research skills pulling in unexpected articles from the far reaches of cyberspace, which I thought might interest you. Here is a summary of some of Mike’s latest posts.
The Fed has been criticised for its rescue of Bear Stearns, which critics say has degenerated into a taxpayer gift to rich bankers.
A senior official at one of the Scandinavian central banks told The Daily Telegraph that Fed strategists had stepped up contacts to learn how
As annual spending bills wind their way through Congress this year, there are ongoing battles over earmarked funding for members’ pet projects.
To get a sense of what the battle is about, check out this newly released list of earmarks in the House Interior appropriations bill.
People scour such lists looking for embarrassing bridges to nowhere in
But the real issue is federalism, not earmarks. Many of these funding projects are not federal responsibilities at all. Look at all the local sewer facilities on the list under the EPA. Why can’t
The Panic of 1907 was a credit contraction of that year which was used as an argument for the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913. It knocked the stock market down from DJI 95 in January to DJI 53 in November. It is also called the Rich Man’s Panic because, although it upset quite a few people on Wall Street, there were no effects on the regular economy, and the average man did not know that anything had happened.
The argument in favor of a central bank was that a free economy was subject to such contractions which arose without warning or explanation, like a tornado in the American West, and if J.P. Morgan had not been present acting like a central bank, it would have been far worse.
The American free economy (in the North) dates from 1785, when Noah Webster began his campaign to legalize interest. If there is something deficient in this system, then why did it take 122 years to manifest itself in a problem? Scientists in any field quickly learn how much time is likely to pass between cause and effect. A chemist is likely to see the effect just a few seconds after he mixes two chemicals. A political movement which enacts new legislation is likely to see its effect perhaps 5 or 10 years after the legislation becomes law. A person who adopts a new diet and exercise program is likely to see some effect a few weeks after starting…
On April 8th in 1913, the 17th Amendment to the Constitution went into effect. To anybody concerned with checks and balances and separation of powers who had actually read the Constitution, it's hard to see how this could be considered a good idea. As a matter of fact, it's hard to see how it could not be seen as undermining the very concept of a federal republic.