Given the overwhelming success of Congressman Paul’s best work, End the Fed, it seems appropriate to share a video from the archives.
View this debate on the Gold Standard, featuring Congressman Ron Paul and Charles Partee, member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. This debate took place at the 1983 Capital Hill Gold Standard Conference in Washington, DC, which was hosted by the Ludwig von Mises Institute.
Note: Given the time in which the debate was recorded, the quality is understandably low.
Also, watch Ron Paul’s 2009 speech in Houston on End the Fed.
{ 8 comments }
Having problems viewing the debate. I can view the Paul speech, leading me to believe it may not be an internal error. Thanks
Hey I found your blog today linked from Human Events. I really like what I see. I’ll be sure to regularly stop in.
I am a 26 year old grad student from Chicago and I have a humble little blog of my own (A Voice in the Wilderness) and here’s my latest piece:
rjmoeller.com…et-it-obama/
Keep up the good work. Thanks and God bless!
-RJM
Great! We are quite glad to have you! We have some fantastic free resources available. We offer hundreds of books available in our Literature section available for free PDF download. We also have hundreds of audio and video files that you will probably enjoy in the Media section!
@Sean – I am able to view the video, but it is embedded into the browser. Perhaps you dont have the control to view embedded video in your browser?
Man that was kind of painful. The debate gets sidetracked by a debate about the details of using gold for money, when really its fiat currency vs free currency.
It should be pointed out that people who invest already have free currency, because they can trade oil, grains, gold etc. It’s the working class who rely on the dollar and have no alternative.
The history was all wrong too… Paul needed to point out that fractional reserve banking is impossible in a free market (since other banks receiving paper money will quickly exchange their slips for the actual gold/whatever deposit), and that gummint has a history of protecting banks who do fractional reserve lending by illegalizing bank runs and implementing policies of fractional reserve banking.
They are both also I think a little naive about the fed’s intentions… To claim that the fed has the nation’s best interests at heart is at best polite.
Oh well. It’s a shame that the debate got sidetracked. Paul had some really good points I hadn’t considered.
It is interesting to note, that if you advocate fiat money you don’t necessarily support the federal reserve, since as Paul points out, the fed allows leaders to fund their programs without the public outrage that would occur if they were funded directly through taxes.
Perhaps this observation and others like it could lead to a broader and therefore stronger coalition for reform.
It is also funny that this debate could have taken place yesterday, since nothing has changed.
@Professor_Blitzkrieg
‘…fractional reserve banking is impossible in a free market (since other banks receiving paper money will quickly exchange their slips for the actual gold/whatever deposit)…”
Actually, that is not true. Even without money substitutes, such as bank notes, banks can engage in fractional reserve lending. They can simply loan out gold coins that are on deposit. Storage facilities could even engage in fractional reserve furniture storage, but that would be stealing. It is different for money, didn’t you know?
Your overall point is well taken. Bank runs and clearing houses, such as the Suffolk Bank, would serve to limit overly irresponsible fractional reserve lending. That is, if there even is such a thing as responsible fractional reserve lending of demand deposits. Government suborns inflation- for our own good, of course.
Failed to playback the video from mises.org as well, found it on YouTube.com
Thanks for posting the video.
I agree with Professor_Blitzkrieg’s comment above that the issue ought to be framed as fiat money versus free money, as opposed to Gold Standard.
That would solve the problem of transition which Partee raised. If you simply remove the legal tender law and make private money legal again, there is no problem of having a central committee decide of initial rates.
Also, I am a bit disappointed that fractional reserve banking was not discussed.
Comments on this entry are closed.