Is it government's responsiblity to ensure a stable currency?

Yes

1 of 2

by Richard Lingensjo

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

*

A concerted effort in the 1970s was initiated by the Carter administration to fight "red-lining" by residential lending institutions. Pressure was placed on government licensed "private sector" companies to make loans to buyers not traditionally qualified, who happened to be geographically clustered. In 1999 the Clinton administration (dems moved on to Freddie and Fannie) exacerbated those sub-prime loan issuances by repealing Federal law regarding certain securities transactions.

The stage was set and liberals in Congress aggressively promoted (left-wing activist group Acorn flourished) practices objected to by a few conservatives. Now, when the predicted day of reckoning has arrived, the vary people who failed in their "over-cite" authority expect us to believe they have the solution!

The foregoing explanation is the reason why the persons in charge are desperate, to have those who have been in opposition, sign-on to their fix.

I recall many years ago, at the Cal State University LA that, I took an entire course titled "Money and Banking". To summarize one subject, the primary lesson from the "depression" is that the "money supply" should be managed, not left to chance. Confidence in the currency (FDIC $100K insurance and other measures) is essential for uninterrupted commerce over an extended period if time.

I my opinion, this current money melt-down is a direct result of government interference in the otherwise objectively managed money supply market by the independent Federal Reserve System. A perfect example of why the Fed. should remain independent; otherwise, imagine how much nonsense government officials could create, unwarranted expansion of artificial assets would run wild.

Bean-counters always have the last word. You can spin and temporally distort a semi-free market; however eventually, a supply & demand equilibrium will prevail. The USSR learned that lesson, even with a totally controlled economy, because, unless you are completely self-sufficient, trade balances are subject to world money markets. The more these markets are integrated (new world order); the longer it takes to correct manipulation.

Democra cy and Capitalism make for the best combination for the average citizen. Free (or even controlled) markets for individual property rights, despite the lame-stream media and "educators", provide long-run protection for commercial transactions. Over-cite by elected representatives should provide the necessary transparency.

Learn more about this author, Richard Lingensjo.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.