Ben Bernanke: Federal Reserve audit would constitute “takeover” by Congress, threaten the “financial system, dollar and economy”

When asked by Rep. John Duncan on Thursday about the fact that a majority of Congress is co-sponsoring Ron Paul’s HR 1207 bill to audit the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke responded:

Ben Bernanke: “My concern about the legislation is that if the GAO is auditing not only the operational aspects of the programs and the details of the programs but making judgments about our policy decisions would effectively be a takeover of policy by the Congress and a repudiation of the Federal Reserve would be highly destructive to the stability of the financial system, the dollar and our national economic situation.”

While many viewers interpreted Bernanke’s statements as a “threat”, we would not rule out the possibility that he was merely stating an opinion that is indeed shared by many economists who grew up under the notion that the autonomy of the Federal Reserve and its mission to centrally manage the economy is sacrosanct and not open to debate.

Fortunately, times have changed and serious questions are being raised as to…

  • what the Federal Reserve has been up to in recent years,
  • its role in the current economic crisis and the creation of the housing bubble through artificially low interest rates,
  • its secret agreements with foreign powers and foreign banking institutions with no oversight whatsoever
  • its disastrous effect on the dollar, which lost 96% of its value since the Fed was established in 1913
  • whether the Fed should have as much unchecked power as it currently does, and
  • the safest way to abolish the Fed if it is established that it has in fact outlived its usefulness.

It’s interesting to consider what happened when President Andrew Jackson tried to abolish one of the Fed’s predecessor banks, the Second Bank of the United States, during his second term (1833 – 1837):

Jackson believed that his reelection was a mandate from the people to break the power of what he called “this hydra of corruption,” the Second Bank of the United States. To accomplish this, Jackson decided to withdraw government money from the bank to pay current expenses and to deposit future government revenues in selected state banks. These banks were called pet banks. Jackson appointed Roger B. Taney of Maryland as secretary of the treasury to carry out this policy after his two previous secretaries refused.

Bank President Biddle and his congressional supporters, led by Clay and Webster, were determined to save the bank. Biddle used the bank’s money to buy political favors. In 1834 the Senate passed a resolution of censure against Jackson and refused to confirm Taney’s appointment to the Cabinet. Biddle said, “This worthy President thinks that because he has scalped Indians and imprisoned Judges he is to have his way with the bank. He is mistaken.”

Biddle began to restrict credit and call in loans from state banks. Business leaders pleaded with Jackson to approve the bank and end the crisis. However, Jackson placed the blame for the panic on the doorsteps of Biddle’s bank and advised all callers to “Go to Nicholas Biddle.” Biddle’s reply was: “All the other banks and all the other merchants may break, but the Bank of the United States shall never break.”

In this struggle for power, Biddle was doomed to defeat. Jackson rallied public opinion behind him, and Biddle was pressured into restoring credit and loans. All he had proved was that Jackson was correct in his contention that a private monopolistic bank, independent of government regulation, should not be entrusted with public finances. Jackson won his greatest political victory, and the Second Bank of the United States passed out of existence when its charter expired in 1836.

Emphasis addedSource


  • can someone tell me how many co sponsors this bill needs to be passed?

  • penny

    Anyone want to explain Ron Paul’s absence on the odious economy killer Energy Bill that passed?

    • Lindsey Brutus

      He voted against it! Whether it is an economy killer is debatable though. If the stimulus bill and the bailout bill hadn’t have been passed then maybe we would have some money left to fix our energy problems. Unfortunately, our practice of deficit spending is killing us!

  • BMSE

    How much longer will we enable their gambling habit?

  • sean, you’re an idiot again..all the comments u post…hahaha..remember me ; }? i’m the one who u used to pretend to be an “engineer”, later on an “economist”, and i think it was toilet cleaner at the end? How are u buddy? What’s ya job now ; } ? working for GM i suppose ; D?

    • Ross

      Kaiser,Sean is no ordinary idiot.He is the resident village idiot designed to distract people from the real issues.Just humour him,since unlike the Fed,we who aspire to liberal democratic ideals are open,non devisive and tolerant.

  • Eido Cohen

    Bernanke says “The Federal Reserve has made enormous strides in the last year under my chairmanship to expand the information that we release… We think we are quite transparent.”
    Really? Are you sure about that, Mr. Bernanke? You think doctored “monthly reports” and a “website” equals transparency? Then how come the Fed refuses to publish M3 since April of 2006? Because it “costs too much to publish”? M3 cost only $2 million annually out of the Fed’s more than $2 billion operational budget.
    How about the real reason that the inflation and CPI figures put out are a complete farce, and real inflation has increased by more than 10% per year for several years running?

    Also, the quote by Bernanke in the article above is not complete. The following is the entirety of his quote:

    “My concern about the legislation is that if the GAO is auditing not only the operational aspects of *our* programs and the details of the programs but *is* making judgments about our policy decisions, *that* would effectively be a takeover of *monetary* policy by the Congress and a repudiation of *the independence of* the Federal Reserve *which* would be highly destructive to the stability of the financial system, the dollar and our national economic situation.”

    Now, with that being said, Bernanke said something quite striking. He purports to say that the Federal Reserve requires “independence” (i.e. no oversight whatsoever) in order to function, yet – by the Constitution – all other areas of government are (supposed to be) subject to check and balances?
    Hmmmm… perhaps Bernanke likes spending trillions of dollars without anyone telling him what to do? Power corrupts… absolute power corrupts absolutely.

  • Robert B. Winn

    The partisan contentions that resulted in the Civil War were caused by the campaign undertaken by Andrew Jackson and Martin van Buren in the 1830’s to convince the American people that political parties were necessary in American government. As long as the majority of voters were not party members, political parties did not have the strength to require a war. The effort by Jackson and van Buren to legitimize party control of elections resulted in the present day Democratic Party, the party that started the Civil War, and a cycle of involvement in foreign wars that makes American foreign and financial policy the mirror of European political philosophy: The people exist to serve the state, or in other words, the people exist to serve the political parties that control the state.
    Americans are now doing what will overcome this form of political slavery. They are starting to register as independent voters, meaning that they can decide for themselves what direction the nation will take instead of having to follow political parties which do nothing except copy what is done by European political parties.

    • Robert B. Winn,

      Excellent surmise of the current situation!!!!! When the
      American people start voting their conscience (independent
      parties), then our cause will leap as high as we want it to!
      The sky will be the limit!
      I was raised socialist, but now that it is knocking at my front door, I do not want any part of it! To be more precise, it
      is fascism that is currently knocking. I would like to see this
      country end up as an anarchy (a real republic). Before you
      say no to this; our country started out at first as NO
      GOVERNMENT, and then moved slightly toward limited government.
      Thomas Paine thought in these terms (which is why I like him
      so much). Too many people think of anachists as bug-eyed,
      bomb-toting fanatics, but that is not the case (with few
      exceptions). There are anarchists that fully support Ron Paul, even though they have no faith in government whatsoever. There
      was one interview on this website that confirms this. Take
      care and keep up the fight!

  • Thomas Jefferson views on the banking industry –
    “I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. “

    • Doug

      What’s sad is there are people living amongst us and running our government who believe our fore fathers and all they accomplished are no longer relevant. Jefferson’s foresight on goverment policy was impeccable. They gave us the blue print for crying out loud and now look at us.

      • Matt


        When you say “Jefferson’s foresight on goverment policy was impeccable.” I wouldn’t romanticize so much, he was still human after all. There are many examples that would dispute the notion of ‘impeccable’, for example:

        “The appointment of a woman to office is an innovation for which the public is not prepared, nor I.”
        -Thomas Jefferson

        • Doug

          I don’t understand your point. That was the logic of the 16th century. I’m sure he’d be ok with women in office now. Are you confusing foresight with something else?
          We still have the best Constitutional frame work in history.

        • BMSE

          I’m sure Doug meant the 18th century, and Jefferson was correct. Looks like it was many more decades before the public was ready.

          • Doug

            Yeah, I did. thanks…

          • Matt

            “I’m sure Doug meant the 18th century, and Jefferson was correct. Looks like it was many more decades before the public was ready.”

            Wow, I didn’t know that was an excuse for not fighting for something? Why didn’t Jefferson fight for suffrage or slavery as much as he did against banks? Wait, probably because he wanted women in their place and he LIKED BEING RICH FROM THE SLAVES HE HAD. Any reason why he wouldn’t like a banking system standardize his little fiefdom? Sure!

            Well, by that train of thought, it looks like the public also might not have been ready at that time for central banks (which Jefferson obviously also opposed) or for giving up his slaves (which he sure as hell didn’t fight for).

            Looks like things do change… Or wait, maybe you should just go on continuing to pick and choose what you wish to ignore/espouse, good call.

          • longshotlouie

            Maybe you should choose what we ignore or espouse?

            Wow, you really should take away the filter that you see the world through, and leave the emotion for the children.

            Here is the quote, again:
            “The appointment of a woman to office is an innovation for which the public is not prepared, nor I.”

            Leaving out personality and emotion, it appears that this opinion of Jefferson turned out to be factually correct.

            The women’s suffrage movement was led by, and achieved victory through, those that needed to do that work …. women.

            Deflection and strawwoman arguments cause you to appear weak. Um, let’s get back to the topic.

          • Matt

            Right, looks like Thomas Jefferson believes in truth and revolutions, but only speaks out in support of them when it suits him. Hence the venom towards Central Banks and the ‘ahhh, well, ya know not this year’ attitude towards suffrage and slavery. Nice.

          • longshotlouie

            Same argument, less relevance.

            Are you dizzy yet?

    • I’ve heard Jefferson didn’t actually say that, but I’m sure if he were alive today he would, exactly.

      • Matt

        I’m sure if he were alive today and didn’t have a fat plantation with a ton of slaves and property on both sides of the ocean, a wife that actually wanted to work, and one currency instead of umpteen billion – sure I bet his viewpoints would be very different. Sure.

        Maybe his viewpoints would be very different on central banking too? Why not?

        • longshotlouie

          More circles and straw.

  • jonathan smith

    God Bless Ron Paul and my God bless our Country to greatness once again.

  • Mickey Kawick

    While you freely quote Jackson, and the financial situation of the 1820’s, the fact remains that this was a huge financial disaster. The South was mired in indebtedness or the inability to obtain new debt and many historians believe that this single decision by Jackson led to years of financial turmoil culminating in the Civil War. I can not put this succinctly and not miss important details (e.g. the South felt ostracized by the banking system controlled by the North) but still, it is widely accepted that Jackson started the ball rolling on the South’s declaration of separation from the North.

    Jackson had a belief that banks were inherently evil and wanted hard currency only (i.e. gold-backed currency) and believed that credit was far more evil than the banks themselves. He expressed his belief that banks should be eliminated in his letters and speeches. His anti-bank campaign resulted in the loss of many banks and one of the deepest depressions in US history.

    Before you get excited about Jackson and his legacy of eliminating banks, remember the results; the depression he created, or helped create, lasted almost 20 years.

    • Doug

      The fed has been up to no good. And if that’s what it takes then so be it because it we don’t divert from this current path we’re on we’ll have a lot more than a stagnant economy to worry about. Remember the saying Power corrupts and Absolute power… well you know the rest. Lets just hope its not too late to save our democracy.

    • Lindsey Brutus

      Mickey: The notion that the Civil War was created as a result of Andrew Jackson’s actions eliminating the 2nd National Bank is ludicrous! The Civil War was fought to rid this country of the greatest mistake of our founding fathers (allowing slavery to exist). Proper monetary policy requires a stable currency and the gold standard is a way to do that. If we could trust our government to keep a stable currency by not going haywire and increasing our money supply at obscene rates then that would be good. But I think that when the Fed is audited we will find out that we can’t trust them just like Jackson couldn’t trust Biddle. Now if we could make it to where we only print a certain amount of notes every year etc. then maybe we can do without the gold standard and retain the federal reserve for their other functions of reserve requirement regulation and discount lending to banks. However I believe you and the American public will soon see that the Open Market operations of the Fed have been so out of control that we as a country may have already been “sold down the river” and it may be that we will have to suffer a long recession just like you mentioned happened after Jackson’s administration to fix our economy!

      • Mickey Kawick

        I realize that this is the perfect forum for a flame war, so my apologies ahead.

        It has long been recognized that Jackson set a few different precedents and that some of these exacerbated the poor relations that the North and South had had up until the point when he was elected.

        Nothing, I repeat nothing, exists in a vacuum. There is no single thing that Jackson could have done to cause the Civil war. But he set in motion attitudes toward the South, banking based on hard currency that made life excruciating for Southerners for around 20 years including some major tarriff reform, and he crushed some banks that were tied to the South. Those formerly wealthy people were unrelenting and 30 years on became some of the biggest campaigners for the South separating from the North.

        Remember… the civil war was started for “states rights” and most in the South felt that they always had the short-end of the stick in all financial, legal, and slavery dealings.

        I could go on and on. There are whole books dedicated to the topic of the Civil War and many blame the financial debacle created by Andrew Jackson as the beginnings of the snowball that caused the Civil War.

        So again, I cannot provide sufficient detail here. There were many reasons he was to blame for the Civil War. Here are a few links:

        Go study it. It is really quite interesting. But it is anything but ludicrous.

        • longshotlouie

          Wow Mickey, we must be on the same schedule.

        • Lindsey Brutus

          Slavery was unfortunately a “state right” back then and we had to amend our constitution to finally outlaw it. Otherwise the 10th ammendment that leaves this power to the states would be in force today. So you can say we fought the Civil war over the states right to determine whether slavery was legal or not. Either way you say it, it’s the same moral issue! Using the 10th amendment to justify the immorality of slavery is ludicrous. Also, your articles bring up Jackson’s threat to South Carolina about it’s refusal to collect tariffs. The power to tarrif is in the constitution and South Carolina had no right to nullify anything! Look at Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution. Jackson was affirming Congress’ right to impose these tarrifs and enforcing those laws. It is a shame that this country has gotten away from duties and tariffs as a chief source of revenue and has gone to the income tax. Look at the result of this policy- the loss of national industries to foreign lands. What a shame!!!!!! Also, in your article from North Georgia it says that the southern states started to seceed because of the election of Lincoln and the fact that without slavery, they knew they would be financially ruined. In the articles that you wanted me to read the issue comes down to slavery as the cause of the Civil war.

          • Mickey Kawick

            The word ludicrous. I really don’t think it means what you think it means.

          • Freemenright!

            I think that perhaps given the gap which has engulfed between those that are super rich and everybody else – one could be forgiven for not thinking that the new form of slavery is the rest of us at the call of the super rich! The more the constitution is eroded the more power slips away from the people and is given by stealth to the super rich via the so called government! I will be shameful if the USA does not bring back its very carefully worded constitution for the people!! I also note that many Ron Paul videos are gone form You Tube… The timing of this coincides with the Federal reserve appointing a Public realations expert to unleash a SPIN campaign on how the Fed serves the best interest of the people??? This tactic is similar to rushing through the Fed Reserve act in 1913!!! IE. The timing is prdictable, neverthe lass removing such contant that has stimulated significant traffic to the web site will be damaging and it gives a business opportunity to a individual or group to pick where they have left off!! It will be a loss in a number of ways….

      • longshotlouie

        Lindsey, After your first two sentences, we are like this (showing fingers crossed), I mean blood cousins on the same mission.

        The fact that you outlined the problem of the FED in so few words says that you are analytical.

        Please, analyze this:

        Though it was one of the few positives of the war, the slavery issue was not even on the table until well into the war. Don’t ask Wiki. Check the historical documents.
        ‘The Real Lincoln’ reveals the timeline with the documents of the time.

        I understand that your belief is the common knowledge on the subject, but it is already apparent that you can see through some of the ‘common knowledge’ that is out there with your summation of the FED.

        Just asking that you take a few hours to review some history.
        No Hurry

        Appreciate your posts

        • Lindsey Brutus

          Louie: I read your article. Wasn’t it Lincoln who stated that he did not believe that a union of states could not long endure half slave and half free? I believe God blessed this nation for coming to terms with this issue back then and not dividing based on the 10th amendment. Would we now be the last country in the world to have slave labor if we didn’t fight this war? Being born and raised in the south I am thankful that this country finally came to terms with the greatest mistake made by its founding fathers; not addressing the issue of slavery!!!!!!!! God bless the U.S.A.!!!!

          • longshotlouie

            Lincoln also said (during a debate with Douglas)

            “I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races…. I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.”

            Did we need to lose 600,000 Americans to end slavery?
            Did towns need to be burned and women and children left starving?

          • First Shot

            Lincoln’s real agenda was the old Hamilton/Clay mercantilist agenda of protectionist tariffs, corporate welfare, central banking, the creation of a giant political patronage machine, and the pursuit of an empire that would rival the British empire.

          • Lindsey Brutus

            Longshot: Unfortunately, we did have to have the war because many of us were too greedy to give up our slaves even though most slave owners admitted to the immorality of the practice. Also, you’re right in that Lincoln said these things about his race having a superior position. Aparthied was the solution of the day for many people back then and “seperate but equal” became the unwritten rule of our society up until the 1960’s. However, make no mistake about it; Lincoln was opposed to slavery on moral grounds.

          • longshotlouie

            So you believe that the only possible course was a civil war?

            Did we need to lose 600,000 Americans to end slavery?
            Did towns need to be burned and women and children left starving?

            Every other developed nation in the world rid theirselves of institutional slavery without such a war.

          • Lindsey Brutus

            Longshot: It’s a shame isn’t it! Our hearts were very hard weren’t they. We debated the issue for some 70 years with no resolution so yes, I believe the war was necessary. Maybe it was God’s judgement on us. I’m glad that we are beyond it now and am heartened by the present day colorblindness of most of our population. What a change we have seen!!!!

          • longshotlouie

            Hmmm, none of the other industrialized nations of the world had to have a civil war to rid themselves slavery.

            According to Walter E. Williams, a syndicated columnist and professor of economics at George Mason University (and many other historians):

            “…… contrary to conventional wisdom, books about Lincoln, and the lessons taught in schools and colleges – the War between the States was not fought to end slavery; Even if it were, a natural question arises: Why was a costly war fought to end it? African slavery existed in many parts of the Western world, but it did not take warfare to end it. Dozens of countries, including the territorial possessions of the British, French, Portuguese, and Spanish, ended slavery peacefully during the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Countries such as Venezuela and Colombia experienced conflict because slave emancipation was simply a ruse for revolutionaries who were seeking state power and were not motivated by emancipation per se.

            Abraham Lincoln’s direct statements indicated his support for slavery; He defended slave owners’ right to own their property, saying that “when they remind us of their constitutional rights [to own slaves], I acknowledge them, not grudgingly but fully and fairly; and I would give them any legislation for the claiming of their fugitives” (in indicating support for the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850).

          • Makesya Tink

            Civil War started January 1861.
            Emancipation Proclamation presented in January 1863.
            Please don’t blame God for the evils of men.

        • First Shot

          “I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.”

          — U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864
          (letter to Col. William F. Elkins)

          • Christine

            Wow, de ja vu.

  • perogi

    @arizona truth seeker

    Evidently, you cannot take the racist imbecile out of AZ either.

  • bernake is a jewish elite illuminati trying to hide there collective agenda of new world order and financial control…..barrack obama…an affirmative action assited black man able to raise a half a billion dollars with no credentials what so ever!! come on the man is a total puppet and in lock step with the power elite…obama will be reduced to a well spoken uncle tom and will go down in history as the worst president of all time… can take the boy out of the city but you can’t take city out of the boy!!

    • arizona truth seeker:

      I understand that there are many Jewish people involved in
      the central banks, but there are just as many (if not more)
      gentiles involved as well. Instead of playing the racist card,
      let’s line up who is the enemy for who they are and not by race.
      In fact, I do not see any blacks or hispanics high up in the
      central banks; I suppose this demonizes us whites as well
      as the Jews. What about all of the great Jewish people like
      Aaron Russo, Andrew Breitbart, Jonah Goldberg and of course,
      one of my favorites Ben Stein who are fighting for ALL of
      our rights? Do we simply discount them? When we go after different races, we in effect say that there is an ethical genetic flaw in them. Bottom line: a person is a person is a person. It is individuals who are corrupt, not races.

      And yes, Barack Obama is a hand-puppet of the Federal Reserve
      System. Would it not be neat though, if he as a black man, did a
      complete turn around, and started strictly going by our
      Constitution instead of selling us all out? He would then
      be an American hero! But of course I do not think this will
      happen; it is just wishful thinking.

      We need to keep the racism completely out of our camp!

      • Christine

        Judge by the content of their character.
        We are looking at some characters all right.

  • Jon Davis

    Wow, makes pretty good sense to me dude.


  • Neil

    I think it’s weird that he leaps from doing an audit to making policy. The GAO is going to perform an audit and presumably release a report. What happens after that is entirely up to the Federal Reserve. if they have been good boys, they will get to keep doing what they are doing.

    Alternatively, if the Audit uncovers serious mismanagement or fraudulent activities, then the government (not the GAO) is obliged to take action. Again, this is not controlling policy, this is just doing their job.

    But Bernanke just thinks of an audit and automatically assumes the GAO wants to control it. It’s probably more of a reflection of his own behaviour than anything based on reality.

    Even more reason to line them all up in front of a firing squad.

  • Yea Right…

    The IRS can dominate, control, terrorize, and destroy Americans over their creativity and incomes to no end, but when the FED is about to be audited — YOU CAN’T HAVE THAT!

    Because, ‘…making judgments about THEIR policy decisions would effectively be a takeover of policy … a repudiation of the Federal Reserve would be highly destructive to the stability of the financial system, the dollar and our national economic situation.’

    They’re a bunch of criminals and hypocritical idiots.

  • Paul

    The federal reserve controls our entire economy. If some ultrawealthy person decides he needs a few billion dollars he has the Fed print it up for him and my kids will pay for it. Sounds just like the old aristocracy of jolly old England if you ask me. Looking back on history, did we really ever get freedom from the rule of the English lords? I dont think so. We all know the golden rule “He who controls the gold rules” The ultrawealthy never really gave us fredom. The term “MORTGAGE” Literally means “The Kings Land”

  • Simus

    If the Fed will be indeed audited, shall we also learn how the masterpieces of modern art came to cost millions?

  • John Allen

    Sean obviously YOU need to read history. The panic of 1837 was a result of currency not being backed by gold or silver (just as it is not today under the Federal Reserve). Do some research before you post what you heard from the Professors at the barber shop, or the Wiki.

    • VR

      In an actual free market economy where gold is money, the total stock of money is irrelevant as long as there is no government intervention in the market or government regimentation of the gold supply. The market will always, without exception, determine the proper supply of gold money to the demand of the market.

  • longshotlouie

    “… the Federal Reserve would be highly destructive to the stability of the financial system, the dollar and our national economic situation.”

    He could have just left it right there.

  • longshotlouie

    Threatening, as he sweats.


    • Sean

      It’s funny how the audit was only brought up once in 3 hours of testimony.

  • Sean

    ya and after 1836 half of the banks failed. The average lifespan for a bank was 5 years. During this time, 30,000 different types of notes were in circulation and businesses refused a lot of it. They didn’t know the value of it or if it was counterfeit.

    • longshotlouie

      ya, and they should have failed.

      And this has what to do with auditing the FED?

      • Sean

        hahaha, you obviously havn’t read this post. I am 100% on topic. Do you even read anything these people write or do you just look at comments all day? I am the complete opposite of you. I read the articles and give my matter of opinion. You read opinions and make foolish remarks.

        • longshotlouie

          sean, my reply was to your post. You really should learn to chill.

          Will you be imploding again today?

    • Kuan Ti

      Sean, you are absolutely correct AND gold as a currency standard is established by the market. You don’t need monetary policy to set the value of gold. But you do when you use fiat money, because its not real money, its credit. One is something you smelt, the other is not. Additional the argument in support of Fiat Money fails to mention the real cost of the fiat currency which includes interest and devaluation. The current economic crisis belongs to the FRB. M3 is an unknown, lets see if the idea of a global fiat currency is brought up as a solution.
      I think the argument that global fiat currency is stable is silly. You can trade an ounce of California gold, for Chinese gold. And american double eagle $20.00 gold coin is about .97 of an ounce of gold. you can use it in Russia, England, China, Iran, France, Holland, New Zealand, Italy, Lebanon, Syria, North Korea…get the picture. Thats a hell of alot more stable and global. Its simple and real. Fiat is a shell game thats built an idustry of econometric models arguing against gold. Central Banks (World Bank) has a lot of gold in thier vaults. Gold taken through the devaluation of currency. They have been able to take the world off the gold statndard. not because its worthless but because its worth more then worthless paper. Common sense is important when faced with a shell game. Gold is worth more than paper…ALWAYS, NEVER CHANGES. PAPER IS A PROMISE, GOLD YOU HOLD. The american economy is now crippled with the promise to pay trillions. The FRB will fail in its efforts to prop up Treasuries. What would you rather hold a $20 solid gold double eagle or $20 FRN?

      • longshotlouie

        A reminder to Sean:
        The central banks prefer to pay, and be paid, in GOLD.


      • Christine

        I hope the elitists are/FED is saving their money to pay ALL of this debt THEY are creating for THEIR plan for the world, that will NOT work. All these folks can pay for their own financial mistakes and plans for ill upon the world. What goes out, comes back like a boomerang to them!

        I imagine a new just law coming into being some time down the road in the not to distant future that makes the members of all these secret, corrupt groups and the FED responsible for the repayment of this astronomical debt THEY are creating, and that’s after they have been audited and abolished of course, along with the IRS. No more willy nilly printing and massive unconstitutional collections to pay of THEIR DEBT to society at large, the world.

        They just might have to retrain to get new job skills.