Calling For the Abolishment or Transparency of The Fed Is Not Populism

Mainstream media that has huge ties to the banks and the monied interest groups are currently campaigning against the people such as Ron Paul, Bunning, and Alan Grayson who are calling for the transparency, congressional oversight, and /or abolishment of the Fed due to all the illegal manipulations and activities it engages in. This campaign is about calling such people populists, which tends to have a negative connotation. The funny part of this whole charade is that for example Ron Paul has been talking about the illegality of the Fed and the harms it brings to the American people for years before any of it became apparent to the common man as did Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson who closed the Second Bank of the United States, which happens to be the predecessor of the Fed. According to the logic of this campaign people like economist Marc Faber, Nobel Prize winner Joe Stiglitz, and money manager John Hussman are populists, too. Mr. Hussman calls for the discharge of Ben Bernanke and Timothy Geithner due to illegal activities such as non-recourse loans to JPMorgan during the Bear Stearns debacle -it is against the Fed's charter- in his weekly column in his firm's website. Joe Stiglitz discussed multiple times how the Federal Reserve was doing a lot of harmful and illegal things that would harm the American people. And Marc Faber who lives somewhere in Asia outright called Bernanke a criminal on Bloomberg TV. Are these people populists, too? Are they in politics? Are they trying to get votes? No, no, and no There you go. There is nothing populist about defending the people's rights and doing things that they want you to do as people's representatives. That does not make one a populist in a negative sense. Every single one of the representatives should be doing the same thing including Mr. Change But No Change. Do not be fooled by the propaganda of interest groups and the media owned by those groups.

This is in the same category as calling prudent investors who would rather hold gold than worthless paper money "goldbugs". I ask those people: Were you better of holding a one ounce gold $20 coin back in 1930 or from even before or holding a $20 paper bill? The gold coin can buy you close to $1100 worth of goods currently if we do not consider the collectibilty value of it vs. $20 of goods with the bill. For those "smart" people saying, you could earn interest on the paper bill, the compound interest and principal would amount to $212 considering the average yield on US treasuries has been under 3% since than. So called goldbugs aren't off the mark after all.