# Will the federal reserve cause the next civil war?



## mickbear (Apr 9, 2009)

interesting artical.

http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time...eral-reserves-next-meeting-lead-to-civil-war/


----------



## lotsoflead (Jul 25, 2010)

all i get is a chance to suscribe to Time from that link


----------



## Twyla (Sep 18, 2010)

Will the Federal Reserve's Ben Bernanke Cause a Civil War? - The Curious Capitalist - TIME.com

That should lead straight to the article. And it IS interesting.


----------



## mickbear (Apr 9, 2009)

i just tried it and it takes me to the artical about the federal reserve.iits a long artical an i didn't want to copy and paste the whole thing.i'll check it again


----------



## Jaspar (Feb 3, 2010)

*Time?*

It took me to a page to subscribe to TIME. TIME? No thanks, I'll skip the article.


----------



## gypsysue (Mar 27, 2010)

Well, I can get to the article from another site, but when I tried to put the link on here, it did the same thing. So here's the text, copied and pasted from the Time article:

"What is the most likely cause today of civil unrest? Immigration. Gay Marriage. Abortion. The Results of Election Day. The Mosque at Ground Zero. Nope.

Try the Federal Reserve. November 3rd is when the Federal Reserve's next policy committee meeting ends, and if you thought this was just another boring money meeting you would be wrong. It could be the most important meeting in Fed history, maybe. The US central bank is expected to announce its next move to boost the faltering economic recovery. To say there has been considerable debate and anxiety among Fed watchers about what the central bank should do would be an understatement. Chairman Ben Bernanke has indicated in recent speeches that the central bank plans to try to drive down already low-interest rates by buying up long-term bonds. A number of people both inside the Fed and out believe this is the wrong move. But one website seems to believe that Ben's plan might actually lead to armed conflict. Last week, the blog, Zerohedge wrote, paraphrasing a top economic forecaster David Rosenberg, that it believed the Fed's plan is not only moronic, but "positions US society one step closer to civil war if not worse." (See photos inside the world of Ben Bernanke)

I'm not sure what "if not worse," is supposed to mean. But, with the Tea Party gaining followers, the idea of civil war over economic issues doesn't seem that far-fetched these days. And Ron Paul definitely thinks the Fed should be ended. In TIME's recently cover story on the militia movement many said these groups are powder kegs looking for a catalyst. So why not a Fed policy committee meeting. Still, I'm not convinced we are headed for Fedamageddon. That being said, the Fed's early November meeting is an important one. Here's why:

Usually, there is generally a consensus about what the Federal Reserve should do. When the economy is weak, the Fed cuts short-term interest rates to spur borrowing and economic activity. When the economy is strong and inflation is rising, it does the opposite. But nearly two years after the Fed cut short-term interest rates to basically zero, more and more economists are questioning whether the US central bank is making the right moves. The economy is still very weak and unemployment seems stubbornly stuck near 10%.

The problem is the Fed only directly sets short-term interest rates. And they are already about as close to zero as you can go. That's why Ben Bernanke has been recently talking about something called "quantitative easing." That's when the Fed basically creates money to buy the long-term bonds that it doesn't directly control, and drive down those interest rates as well. That should further reduce the cost of borrowing for large companies and homeowners. Some people are calling this "QE2" because the Fed made a similar move during the height of the financial crisis when it bought mortgage bonds. (See photos of the Tea Party movement)

Not everyone agrees this is a good move. In fact, a number of presidents of regional Fed banks, not all of which get to vote at Fed policy meetings, have recently come out against Bernanke's plans. Some say it sets bad policy. Others think it will stoke inflation, which might be the point. Few, though, have warned of armed conflict. Here's how Zerohedge justifies its prediction of why the Fed's Nov. 3rd meeting will lead to violence:

In a very real sense, Bernanke is throwing Granny and Grandpa down the stairs - on purpose. He is literally threatening those at the lower end of the economic strata, along with all who are retired, with starvation and death, and in a just nation where the rule of law controlled instead of being abused by the kleptocrats he would be facing charges of Seditious Conspiracy, as his policies will inevitably lead to the destruction of our republic.

OK. The idea that Bernanke might kill large swaths of low-income neighborhoods or Florida by his plan to further lower interest rates is a little ridiculous. But there is a point in Zerohedge's crazy. Lower rates do tend to favor borrowers over savers. And the largest borrowers in the country are banks, speculators and large corporations. The largest spenders in our country though tend to be individuals. Consumer spending makes up 70% of the economy. And the vast majority of consumers are on the low-end of the income scale. So I think it is a valid question to ask whether the Fed's desire to drive down interest rates at all costs policy is working. Companies are already borrowing at low rates. They are just not spending. (Read a special report on the financial crisis blame game)

That being said, civil war, probably not. "It is a gross exaggeration," says Allan Meltzer, who is a top Fed historian at Carnegie Mellon. "I cannot recall ever learning about riots or civil war even when the Fed made other mistakes." When I called, David Rosenberg was traveling and couldn't talk, but he did send me a quick e-mail to stress that he has never, ever suggested that any moves the Fed makes will lead to a militia uprising.

Some smart people, though, including Meltzer, it appears, and Rosenberg do think the path of quantitative easing that the Fed looks likely to embark on is the wrong move. John Taylor, a top Fed scholar at Stanford, says eventually you will have to pull the support out, and when you do a year from now when the economy is recovering he thinks it could be quite disruptive. So even if you don't double dip now, you might double dip then. And even if you don't it would make for a slow recovery. Others, such as Raghuram Rajan, who has became famous for warning about the possibility of a financial crisis back in 2005, believe low-interest rates could be creating new bubbles in say gold or commodities.

So it seems clear what the Fed is likely to do. How the economy, the militias and the rest of us react is up in the air. The count down is on. T minus 15 days to Fedamageddon. See you there, hopefully."


----------



## Clarice (Aug 19, 2010)

I can't see a civil war. Whining & complaining is the only thing I see the majority of the sheeple doing. War takes organization and hard work and sacrifice, that is not likely with the mentality of the masses today. That sounds hard, I don't mean to hurt anyone's feelings, but when people won't even spend the time to organize & sacrifice in order to prepare for what is to come I can't believe they would go to war. Too much work & sacrifice. If I've stepped on any toes, please forgive me.


----------



## thunderdan19 (Oct 12, 2010)

Okay, I have a few issues with this presumption by Zerohedge:

1. I think that if the guvment finally turns its back on the low income/welfare/gvt assistance/etc., it will be because the gvt finally ran itself out of money to give them. Printing more only makes each dollar worth less, so if you only have few to start with, you're screwed when hyperinflation kicks in. If the gvt kills the economy and can't print checks worth the paper printed on, it won't be civil war, it'll be anarchy. The have nots will turn on the haves and it will be every family for themselves.

2. The Tea Party is not a militia. Just because TP folks tend to be strong on the 2nd Amendment does not remotely make them a militia. It has no organized military/armed element at all. The Tea Party's power is at the voting booth, and most expect it to wield that hammer in November. 

3. Existing militias aren't even capable of serious terrorist activity, let alone a "civil war" type uprising. The FBI keeps them solidly under observation and could break up (calling in the National Guard if needed, but wouldn't likely even need it) any militia group at any time, if they actually started breaking the law. ERT/BATF/SWAT Sheriffs would own pretty much any group of "weekend (militia) warriors." Even military security contractors would be overwhelmed quickly, should the military turn on them.

4. The true potential for a "civil war" (though not a shooting war) comes from the states' standing up to the fedgvt over issues like socialist healthcare, not accepting stimulus funds, not accepting fedgvt union payoffs, etc. And that will be fought in the courts, not on the battlefield.

5. Battles between states (again in the courts, rhetoric) will be more common as issues like illegal immigration laws/enforcement, entitlements and other state bankrupting issues push states like CA, NY, IL, NV and others to the brink of complete bankrupcy. But full on "civil war" is not a likelihood.


----------



## nj_m715 (Oct 31, 2008)

Clarice said:


> I can't see a civil war. Whining & complaining is the only thing I see the majority of the sheeple doing.


That's what the Governments of Greece and France thought too.


----------



## thunderdan19 (Oct 12, 2010)

Striking/Rioting is a whole lot closer to anarchy than civil war...


----------



## nj_m715 (Oct 31, 2008)

True, but if you happen to be the guy getting kicked to death in the street or the family starving or burned out of your home it doesn't really matter, does it?


----------



## mickbear (Apr 9, 2009)

thunderdan19 said:


> Striking/Rioting is a whole lot closer to anarchy than civil war...


anarchy is what i fear more than civil war,which i dont see happening.with the things happening in France it make me wonder if it could ever reach that point here


----------



## thunderdan19 (Oct 12, 2010)

My guess would be that it will begin in CA (as they appear to be most likely place to bankrupt out and not be able to provide entitlement services to the "have nots"). If you start seeing serious SHTF out there, beware, as it might just be the first domino.


----------



## goose (Jun 12, 2010)

A civil war implies two sides fighting each other over...something.

Is the author implying we'd go to war against the Fed? (Personally, I think there's a good chance I could take Bernanke.  )

Chaos, anarchy, riots, and the like--that might be possible/likely should people's means of support evaporate.

But a civil war? I have no idea what that means.


----------



## dahur (Dec 18, 2009)

I'm retired, and have always been a saver. The low interest rates have quite affected my income the last few years. I can understand lowering them in times of recession. But I can see the Federal Reserve catering to Wall Street by doing it also. 
IMO, I think this is setting the US up for some monetary problems down the road. 
I can see some real serious inflation on the horizon. 
I think the Gold people think that too.


----------

