Biden Had a Jeb Bush Moment at West Point
Democrats Are Getting Desperate
The Left Killed George Floyd
The UN Should Memorialize the Iranian President’s Victims, Not Raisi Himself
A Quick Bible Study Vol. 219: What the Bible Says About Stars
Punishment That Fits the Crime
Six Reasons to Vote in Elections
UNRWA Is the Poster Child for Why America Should Leave the U.N.
Our Institutions Are Burning Themselves Down
Saluting America's Champions
UnitedHealth's Harms Reach Far Beyond Recent Cyberattack
A University System Just Repealed Its DEI Policy
Chuck Schumer Admits Democrats’ 'Ultimate Goal,' And It's Not Good
Xi Jinping Asks American Tourists to 'Save' China's Failing Economy
Fast Food Is Now Considered a 'Luxury' Item, Thanks to Bidenflation
OPINION

If We Can’t End the Fed, Can We at Least Subject It to Competition?

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

Ron Paul has made “End the Fed” a popular slogan, but some people worry that this is a radical untested idea. In part, this is because it is human nature to fear the unknown.

Advertisement

But there are plenty of examples of policy reforms that used to be considered radical but are now commonplace.

This list could go on, but the pattern is always the same. People assume something has to be done by government because “that’s the way it’s always been.” Then reform begins to happen and the myth is busted.

But is money somehow different? Not according to some experts.

Here’s some of what John Stossel wrote in a recent column.

Advertisement

Why must our government make currency competition illegal? …Competition is generally good. Why not competition in currencies? Most people I interviewed scoffed at the idea. They said private currency should be illegal. But impressive thinkers disagree. In 1975, a year after he won the Nobel Prize in economics, F.A. Hayek published “Choice in Currency,”which has inspired a generation of “free banking” economists. Hayek taught us that competition not only respects individual liberty, it produces essential knowledge we cannot obtain any other way. Any central bank is limited in its access to such knowledge, and subject to political pressure, no matter how independent it’s supposed to be. “This monopoly of government, like the postal monopoly, has its origin not in any benefit it secures for the people but solely in the desire to enhance the coercive powers of government,” Hayek wrote. “I doubt whether it has ever done any good except to the rulers and their favorites. All history contradicts the belief that governments have given us a safer money than we would have had without their claiming an exclusive right to issue it.” Former Federal Reserve economist David Barker discussed this idea recently with me. “There are a lot of ways that private money might be better,” Barker said. “It might have embedded chips that would make it easier to count.” The chips would also prevent counterfeiting. There used to be private currencies. A businessman who sold iron and tin made coins that advertised his business. The Georgia Railroad Co. also produced its own currency. This became illegal in 1864 — Abraham Lincoln was a fan of central banking.

Advertisement

Stossel’s historical references are particularly important. As I explain in this video, many nations – including the United States – used to have competing currencies.

And if you want a thorough analysis of the Fed’s performance, I urge you to watch this George Selgin speech. Then ask yourself whether we would have been in better shape with private currencies.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos