Slashdot Mirror


The History of the Federal Reserve

Michael J. Ross writes "Money plays a key role in modern life; in fact, for some people, nothing is more important than acquiring more of it. Yet most people do not know what money really is, how it is created, how its supply is expanded and contracted, and who benefits from those changes. In the United States, the central figure in this ongoing drama, is our central bank, the Federal Reserve, whose history, power, and effects are explored in G. Edward Griffin's fascinating book The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve." Read on for the rest of Michael's review. The Creature from Jekyll Island author G. Edward Griffin pages 624 publisher American Media rating 9 reviewer Michael J. Ross ISBN 0912986212 summary A compelling history and indictment of the Federal Reserve system For the citizens of the United States and several Latin American countries, the "coin of the realm" is the US dollar, which is, in simple terms, created by the Federal Reserve, a.k.a., the Fed. But who created the Federal Reserve, and why? The subjects of banking in general, and the Federal Reserve in particular, would be considered by most Americans to be dry, boring, and of little importance to their day-to-day life. But those same people are endlessly fascinated by how to make more money (with minimal effort, such as the lottery), how to spend as little of it as possible (coupons never go out of style), and how to maximize one's investment returns. Why this disconnect? Why do Americans care so little about the origins of that which they spend a third of their time pursuing, and seemingly another third spending?

Some of these "salary slaves" may understand that their money serves as a store of wealth and a medium of commercial exchange, which makes possible their daily financial transactions without the need for bartering. But, for the most part, they do not understand the critical importance of what is backing that money, if anything; how that money comes into existence, and what debt offsets it; what entities control the supply and distribution of that money; and how those changes can be used to legally steal purchasing power from victims who may not be entirely unsuspecting, but do not truly comprehend how they are getting ripped off.

The typical American, if he or she has given any thought to the matter, would consider the following statements to be true: The Federal Reserve is federal, i.e., a part of the US government. The Federal Reserve is a reserve, i.e., it has monetary savings of real value. The Federal Reserve serves the public, and is not a cartel of private banks serving itself. The US dollar has real value, i.e., it represents tangible wealth, such as gold securely stored at Fort Knox. Inflation is an increase in prices. Inflation is caused by greedy companies, not the US government or the Federal Reserve.

As G. Edward Griffin makes clear in his book, none of these beliefs are true — regardless of how well entrenched they are in our conventional "wisdom." He also explains why the US government and the Federal Reserve have their own reasons for being in no hurry to eliminate this ignorance. Yet these topics are just a small portion of what is covered in his far-ranging discussion of the theory and history of money and banking, particularly within the United States.

Spanning 624 pages, the material is organized into 26 chapters, which are grouped into six sections: "What Creature Is This?" (the Federal Reserve's shameful birth, and the shenanigans of the Fed, S&Ls, the IMF, and the World Bank), "A Crash Course on Money" (money, gold, debasement, fiat money, fractional-reserve banking, and money creation), "The New Alchemy" (the Rothschilds, J.P. Morgan, and banker financing of wars and revolutions), "A Tale of Three Banks" (America's failed experiments with central banking, and the American Civil War), "The Harvest" (the unconstitutional creation of the Federal Reserve, and its dreadful effects, including the Crash of 1929), "Time Travel into the Future" (current crises caused by central banking, how they can be reversed, future scenarios, and what the individual can do regardless). Every one of the six sections begins with a brief summary, as does every chapter, with every chapter wrapped up with a more extensive summary.

The section summaries also appear in the table of contents, which precedes a preface and the author's acknowledgments. These are followed by a delightful introduction — a piece from the British humor magazine Punch, comprising a rather telling exchange between an unusually honest banker and a soon-to-be-disillusioned bank customer. The book contains three appendices: a summary of the structure and function of the Federal Reserve system; natural laws of human behavior in economics; and whether the M-1 measure of money is subtractive or accumulative. The author also provides an index, as well as an impressive bibliography, reflecting his extensive research on the topics. In addition, the author invites readers to join Freedom Force, an organization dedicated to increasing liberty in the United States, curbing federal totalitarianism, and abolishing the Federal Reserve — all through peaceful participation in government, and the shaping of public policy starting at the grassroots level.

The Creature from Jekyll Island is published by American Media, under the ISBNs 0912986212 and 978-0912986210. It first came out in July 1994, and is now in its fourth edition, and its 19th printing. It also has Japanese and German editions, published in February 2005 and August 2006, respectively. On the book's Web page, visitors will find testimonials and comments from readers, updates to the book, a review of the book by Jane H. Ingraham of The New American, and G. Edward Griffin's response to a critique of his book by Edward Flaherty, who holds a Ph.D. in Economics. On that Web page, interested readers can order audio cassettes or CDs of the author's lecture, based upon this book, and produced in 1998.

My only criticisms of the book concern not the material itself, but its production — more specifically, the printing and layout, presumably chosen and thus fixable in the future by the publisher. The generous font size used throughout the volume, makes it easy to read; but the bold text, such as the subheads found in every chapter, is a bit rough-edged — on some pages worse than others. The subheads, already bolded, do not need to be in all uppercase; the publisher should choose one or the other. In addition, the inside margin length is a bit too small, forcing the reader to crack open the book more than should be needed, in order to comfortably read the text closest to the binding. In future editions, some of the space in the outer margin could be used to solve the problem, without any change to the words on each page, and thus the length of the book.

But aside from these minor flaws, this book is to be highly recommended. The Creature from Jekyll Island is a remarkably thorough, detailed, and challenging critique of central banking and America's latest incarnation of it, the Federal Reserve. G. Edward Griffin's precision of language, and his interweaving of the major players and their motives, makes for a most compelling historical study.

Michael J. Ross is a Web developer, freelance writer, and the editor of PristinePlanet.com's free newsletter.

You can purchase The Creature from Jekyll Island from amazon.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

20 of 514 comments (clear)

  1. Another good read... by dada21 · · Score: 4, Informative

    ...and a free e-book download is What has Government done to our money? by the esteemed Murray N. Rothbard.

    I've read dozens of books (over 30, for sure) on central banking theory, and none of them have given a completely clear and transparent picture of what the Fed really is, what is does, and what it is supposed to do. In the end, all central banks have one customer: member banks (the banks you and I go to), and the central banks have one policy: save their buddies in the member banks against any malinvestment or market change.

    The Fed isn't here to protect the value of OUR money (in fact, since the Fed's creation in 1913, the US dollar is about 95-96% devalued), and it isn't here to protect our investments or savings.

    1. Re:Another good read... by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 3, Informative

      The depositors at Northern Rock were, sorry to say, idiots. I would _never_ put my money into a fractional reserve bank. ... Fractional reserve banking is fraudulent, it is theft, and it should be criminal. The idea is criminal for anyone to perform except for banks licensed by the State or Federal governments.

      People who die from surgical errors are, sorry to say, idiots. I would _never_ undergo surgery. Surgery is physical assault, it is mutilation, and it should be criminal. The idea is criminal for anyone to perform except for physicians licensed by the state or federal governments. Did you see the fallacy? There's two: first, you severely mischaracterize why and how fractional reserve banking is legally controlled. If you act as a bank (in some strictly-defined ways) without being licensed, you're guilty of banking without a license, just as I would be guilty of performing medicine without a license if I tried giving people open-heart surgery. It doesn't mean that fractional-reserve banking (or surgery for that matter) are inherently bad things, just that they are high-risk endeavors that are considered deserving of licensing and control.

      Your second fallacy is your apparent belief that, since fractional-reserve banking involves a degree of risk, it shouldn't be done at all. That's absurd. Risks can be controlled and mitigated, and in the decades of experience we have with fractional-reserve banking, the risks in question have been mitigated. The biggest failure in fractional-reserve banking was the monetary contraction towards the beginning of the Depression, which was caused by a combination of poor banking regulation and poor monetary policy (including what remained of the Gold Standard at the time).

      All banks are bankrupt -- if each person that visits Slashdot this week was to withdraw all their savings, checking accounts, money markets and CDs (even at a penalty), many banks in the U.S. would be insolvent.

      No, the bank would not be insolvent. Uncollected debts that are owed to you are still assets, and insolvency only occurs when your liabilities exceed your assets--not when your short-term liabilities exceed your cash on hand. (That's a cashflow problem. And yes, they borrow funds from the Fed to cover that cashflow problem, but once they collect their debts they pay the Fed back with interest--part of the cost of doing business.) And yes, the percentage of uncollected debt that never ends up being collected due to deadbeats is already accounted for--that's one of the purposes of interest, to mitigate risk. In any case, I enjoy living in a society where I can collect interest and borrow money without too much difficulty, and where the risk is spread out sufficiently. If you want to bury gold in your backyard instead, that's up to you.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    2. Re:Another good read... by saider · · Score: 2, Informative

      land prices ought to stay more or less the same, since the ammount of land almost never changes

      But the demand for land does increase as the population increases, pushing up the price.

      Supply and Demand. Not just one or the other.

      --


      Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
  2. in 4, 3, 2, 1... by niloroth · · Score: 2, Informative

    Waiting for some idiot to post a link to the Zeitgeist movie's section on the federal reserve. Seriously hoping it doesn't happen, but i have a strange feeling that at least one person on here has fallen victim to the allure of spooky music mixed with insane and unfounded assertions.

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  3. Bah! Who needs history when there's ADVENTURE! by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Informative

    No nerdly discussion about the history of money would be complete without a slavish recommendation to read Neal Stephenson's Baroque Cycle. Which, indeed, one should. ADHD raised-on-MTV types needn't bother, but it's pure gold. (+5 self-referental humor!)

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  4. You want the negatives on this book? by brundlefly · · Score: 4, Informative

    There are plenty. Many people do not consider this book to be a balanced discussion of the subject matter at hand. This type of controversy should be mentioned in any prominent book review.

    1. Re:You want the negatives on this book? by cheezedawg · · Score: 3, Informative

      Apparently you are unfamiliar with the 19th century. In 100 years, the United States was transformed from near total wilderness to the world's largest industrial power filled with hundreds of cities and a vast railroad system.

      The United States did not become the world's largest economy until after WWII. The economy in the 19th century was wild, with massive swings in employment, GDP growth, and inflation. It was not uncommon for the economy would grow by 20+% one year, only to contract by 15% 2 years later (1813 and 1815, for example). The average nominal GDP growth for that century was only around 4.5% compared that to almost 7% since then (and that includes the Great Depression!).

      This was all done during a period of moderate - and at times severe - deflation. Deflation is the natural order of things in an industrial society.

      This is incorrect. Between 1790-1913, the annualized inflation rate was around .1%, which is very low, but still positive. With only one exception, every deflationary period during the 19th century time corresponded directly with an economic contraction. The exception to this is the years 1866-1878, where there were 12 years of sustained deflation (the longest deflationary period on record) but GDP growth remained positive. This period is an outlier in our economic history, and not a basic rule like you claim.

      Don't kid yourself. A bond is a loan.

      Of course a bond is a loan, but the mechanism which public debt increases the money supply is different from private debt. When the government holds an auction to sell securities, it transfers $X from the public to the government (in exchange for $X worth of interest bearing assets). This alone would actually decrease the money supply if it weren't for the fact that the government does not maintain a cash account, so it turns around and spends the $X, putting the money back in the private sector (although to different people that it borrowed the money from). The end result is that the private sector still has $X and they have $X worth of interest bearing assets in the form of treasury securities.

      Watch this video.

      I have seen that video before, and I do not like it. It is classic conspiratorial propaganda- just enough fact so you can't accuse them of outright lying, but dressed up with the most inflammatory language possible and reaching conclusions not supported by the facts. I found it to be an appeal to emotion rather than to reason, and I don't like that.

      I'm sorry, I didn't know some people on slashdot still support ad hominem attacks.

      I have no idea who you are referring to here (who has supported ad hominem attacks in this thread?), but the idea that slashdot of all places (the cesspool of online discourse) is somehow too dignified for ad hominem attacks made me chuckle.

      As for the comment on fractional reserve lending, even you don't seem to grasp the consequences. Anyway, watch the video - maybe it will become clear.

      You just did it again. It is possible to understand the macroeconomic impacts of fractional reserve lending, and disagree with benzapp at the same time. You have to stop assuming that anybody that disagrees with you is just ignorant.

      No one is buying US treasuries anymore because of the pathetic interest rate the fed set last week, and the debt load of the American consumer is far too great.

      No one is buying our treasuries? Today's Treasury auction for 5 year notes attracted over $37 billion worth of competitive bids. This was about $2 billion more than last month's auction (before the Fed announced the cut in the target rate), and about the same as the auction held in September 2006. Oh, and the interest rate from today's auction was 4.25%, which is only 1/8% higher than last month, and a full .

      --
      "The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
    2. Re:You want the negatives on this book? by cheezedawg · · Score: 2, Informative

      You used the nominal GDP rate and not the real GDP rate - that is bad economic analysis.
      Yup- I had started out analyzing the GDP vs inflation rates, where the nominal GDP is the proper number to use, to generate that graph. I should have used real GDP numbers for the direct comparison. I need to stop posting after my brain has already turn off from a long day of work. My bad.

      But look at the per capita GDP growth rates. From 1790-1913, real per capita GDP grew by an average of 1.45% per year. From 1913-2006, real per capita GDP grew by 2.10%, and remember that this period includes the Great Depression.

      I'm an aesthete at heart and don't believe it is possible nor desirable to measure the success or failure of civilization in the materialistic terms of an bean counter.
      Well, I think there is a lot more to the success or failure of an entire civilization than just it's economy, but I guess that is a different discussion.

      Nobody claims that the GDP is a perfect measure of an economy, but it is the best broad measurement that we have, so I don't think that any honest discussion can just dismiss the number.

      If the GDP decreases by 25% but the prices of goods drops 50%, a rational person would call that a period of prosperity.
      I disagree. The only way you can prosper with the GDP decreasing is if your population and resource requirements are also decreasing- otherwise people start starving.

      Yeah, we're definitely talking about a different video.
      Yikes- sorry about that. More evidence that I shouldn't post past my bedtime :). I was referring to the 3 1/2 hour documentary from the mid 1990s called The Money Masters. Somebody else posted a google video link to that in this discussion, and I somehow got it confused with your post.
      Here is a link to that video, btw.

      I have also seen that Money as Debt cartoon before, and it isn't quite as conspiratorial. I still didn't like how they treat the subject like a big secret that nobody talks about when I learned about it in my freshmen econ class years ago.
      --
      "The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
  5. for the cliff notes, go here... by ed1park · · Score: 2, Informative
  6. The Invisibility of Money by klenwell · · Score: 2, Informative

    I was a lit major in school but often found myself led stangely enough to the subject of money, currency in particular, as it's a subject that seems to have had much more relevance in people's everyday life in that past than it does now. I find the Federal Reserve, especially the institution of FDIC after the Great Depression, one of the greatest innovations of the 20th century. As Milton Friedman points out, it effectively ended the terrible plague of bank runs that wracked economies in the past.

    To get a sense how invisible money as an instrument is to most people in modern stable economies, you can look at the plays of Shakespeare and all the reference to coinage and especially "debased" currency during the period. One of the most insightful history books I've read is E.C. Challis's The Tudor Coinage. It really gives you a sense of how much we take a stable currency, as the bedrock for a stable economic system, for granted.

    Anyway, if you have any curiosity about that subject at all, you can check out this article:

    http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0013-0117(196712)2%3A20%3A3%3C441%3ATDOTC1%3E2.0.CO%3B2-H

    I've been looking for a good stimulating non-fiction read. I think I'll pick up G. Edward Griffin's book. Thanks for the review.

    --
    Innovation makes enemies of all those who prospered under the old regime... -- Machiavelli
  7. This guy is a conspiracy theorist by br00tus · · Score: 1, Informative
    This is not a mainstream reporter who decided to do a book on the Federal Reserve, in the manner of James Bamford writing about the NSA, or Robert Caro writing about the TBTA or the like. Griffin is a conspiracy theorist of the 9/11 truther, Alex Jones/Art Bell type. I know he is one of those people who think the Rockefellers secretly supported the Soviet Union and that type of thing. I suggest you Google his name before plonking down your money for this book.


    If you want to read about what central banks are up to, I suggest you read some books on economics - from the 19th century. It was clear to people back then why governments wanted to create fiat money, whether it was sustainable and that sort of thing. They hit it right on the money back then, any other commentary nowadays is just an addendum to what was figured out then.

  8. Redaction by klenwell · · Score: 2, Informative
    Just noticed this section in the review:

    The author also provides an index, as well as an impressive bibliography, reflecting his extensive research on the topics. In addition, the author invites readers to join Freedom Force, an organization dedicated to increasing liberty in the United States, curbing federal totalitarianism, and abolishing the Federal Reserve -- all through peaceful participation in government, and the shaping of public policy starting at the grassroots level.


    On second thought, maybe not the impartial history of the role of currency in American society, nor the impartial review of a new book, that I was looking for.

    In any event, thanks for pointing out the author's agenda in the review.
    --
    Innovation makes enemies of all those who prospered under the old regime... -- Machiavelli
  9. Other sources of information on the Fed by BunkAsInBed · · Score: 2, Informative

    A good video on the subject is From Freedom to Fascism (http://www.freedomtofascism.com/) You can purchase the DVD for a $1. The movie cites the book and includes some video commentary from the Author of Creature from Jekyll Island. If you are alarmed about what you learn you may want to consider throwing some support behind Congressmen Ron Paul, who is running for president. He entered politics because of his concerns about monetary policy and the Federal Reserve. He is currently the ranking chair of the house finance committee and there is some great YouTube videos on his exchanges with the Fed during committee meetings.

  10. Re:Gold Standard == Bad by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is what I don't like about arguments against the gold standard.

    The entire disadvantage you just listed as stemming from a gold standard is: "Things requiring gold would be unjustifiably expensive."

    That advantage is so bad that no one can support a gold standard unless they "fundamentally misunderstand macroeconomics"?

    It's things like this that for so long kept me from understanding the hate for the gold standard. The best arguments against it seemed to be pretty trivial, and yes, that includes the extensive list on Wikipedia.

    Think how confusing that must sound: Those who support a gold standard are idiots because they are too dismissive of high prices for items containing gold. Huh?

    After a while of wringing out sources for a serious argument, I finally found something more convincing, which is this:

    1) Under a gold standard, the (very high) volatility of gold is imposed on the general price level, making it that much harder to plan economic activity, and magnifying negative events.
    2) Significant amounts of gold must be held out of production, just for use as money, with signficant opportunity cost.
    3) Increasingly huge portions of the economy are diverted to gold production during times of economic growth because that, rather than e.g. cancer cures, have the highest return.

  11. Re:My review by king-manic · · Score: 2, Informative

    When a bank lends money that's backed by someone's mortgage, it's backed by a very "real asset": the mortgaged property.

    IANAE, The corollary is that the mortgage must be for an amount that is very close to the value of that asset. If you have massive over estimates of property values due to something like a real estate bubble, once the bubble burst the revaluation throws the system out of whack. Banks says they have X dollars but due to over valuation they actually only have Y% of X dollars where Y is 100. If there is a crash like that and a simultaneous extreme cash call from the banks actual creditors (their customers) then the whole system collapses.

    Gold backed currencies aren't subject to this rare circumstance but Gold standards have a lot of draw backs. Thus even with the known failure conditions of the current system it's still better then the gold standard.

    --
    "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
  12. As one who knows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative
    I've been an employee at one of the twelve Federal Reserve Banks for eight years. During employee orientation, they asked us noobs what we knew about the Fed. I was the only one in the room with more than a rudimentary knowledge. They educate the new hires, AND they educate the public. We employees are almost always explaining what the Fed is (or myth-busting assumptions about the Fed).

    • The Federal Reserve System is the collective title for the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the twelve member banks.
    • The Board of Governors IS a government agency; the district Federal Reserve Banks are not.
    • The Federal Reserve Banks are owned by member banks in each Federal Reserve District.
    • Federal Reserve District boundaries were established based on population and economic centers at the time of the Federal Reserve Act (that's why they seem weighted toward the east coast).
    • The Federal Reserve Board has been given responsibility by Congress to oversee and manage monetary policy, distribute currency, and to ensure depository institution compliance with various regulations.
    • The Federal Reserve Banks act under delegated authority (from the Board of Governors) to ensure that member banks in their districts comply with regulatory standards and other sound banking practices. This is the function that sends bank examiners (auditors) out to supervised institutions to review bank lending practices, risk portfolios, and overall management. If not for these guys, we never would have had "It's a Wonderful Life" (which features bank examiners as the pseudo-villans).
    • Each Federal Reserve Bank has its own board, made up of representatives from the banking and business communities within the district. This board, aided by research conducted by the Reserve Banks or within the market, works to understand the local/regional economy. Reserve Banks then bring their views and concerns to the Federal Open Market Committee.
    • The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) is a twelve member board that includes seven members of the Federal Reserve System's Board of Governors, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and four presidents from the remaining eleven Reserve Banks (who serve one-year, rotating terms).
    • Federal Reserve Banks serve as banks to banks, making available overnight loans to cover transfers between institutions, and holding required reserve funds for member banks (reserve funds are cash reserves each member bank must maintain--they were designed to prevent liquidity in the event of a bank-run event like that which occurred in the 1930s).
    • Federal Reserve Banks conduct community outreach and educational activities, both for bankers and community groups, to educate them regarding pertinent topics, especially the Consumer Reinvestment Act, minority issues and banking, reaching underserved populations.
    • Federal Reserve Bank employees are not Federal employees.


    There's much more I could say, but that's an example of the type of information I pass on to friends and neighbors all the time when they hear that I work "at the Fed."
     
    [I'm posting anonymously just in case my employer might think this post violates some policy or other. I don't think it does, because this is public information, but I rather like working here, so I'll play it safe.]
  13. Re:Gold Standard == Bad by Hatta · · Score: 2, Informative
    Read it again.

    No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;

    This only restricts the states from coining money that is not gold or silver. The federal government can make anything they want legal tender. Once it's legal tender, the states can use it.
    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  14. Re:Gold Standard == Bad by MSTCrow5429 · · Score: 2, Informative

    I don't think so. If I'm a State, and I accept Federal Reserve Notes as payment of taxes, this de facto renders Federal Reserve Notes to be legal tender. The Federal Government can coerce the several States to accept the debt-backed fiat currency of the Federal Reserve as legal tender, but I'm not sure this was ever necessary. If the States had decided to operate on Constitutional principles, then yes, that would be a point of contention. Most people have no clue how fiat currency and fractional reserve banking function, and I'm certain you could include many politicians.

    --
    Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
  15. Re:Gold Standard == Bad by Yunzil · · Score: 2, Informative

    However, why would the Constitution in Article 1, Section 10, prohibit the States from making anything but gold and silver legal tender, if Article I, Section 8 allows the Federal government to not only coin currency, but print currency?

    Probably because they wanted to keep the States from being able to declare any old thing as currency. You don't want Virginia using tobacco leaves as money, or Florida to declare it will accept foreign banknotes, etc.

  16. The government does not borrow money from the FED by mosb1000 · · Score: 3, Informative

    "Today, they simply ask the Fed to print more money for them to borrow."

    The FED only lends money to banks, who lend it out for loans to private industry. Believe it or not, the majority of the domestic national debt it owed to . . . the U.S. government. Social security has been collecting a surplus of money since its inception, and the government has been spending that, and issuing bonds to repay what they took from the program at a later date (presumably they will pay for it by raising the federal income tax). The rest of the national debt is owed to private investors who purchased bonds from the government at a fixed rate of return, much of this money is owed to foreign entities. To finance a deficit, the government issues more bonds, which it must repay later with interest.

    The FED isn't some huge conspiracy, a bunch of banks got together and tried to find a way to end the volatility that the money market was continually facing. The primary goal of the FED is controlling inflation. People always say that inflation is out of control, I don't know what country they live in. We have very low, but always positive inflation. Most economists agree that this is the best situation. Anything else you can think of (including a commodity standard) would be much worse. It would be more volatile, and it would be hard to control inflation.