Stephen Zarlenga – A Radically New Monetary Policy

by on January 26, 2011      

in Finance & Economics

Stephen Zarlenga

Stephen Zarlenga

American Monetary Institute director Stephen Zarlenga joins us to tell the history of money, monetary policy, monetary theory, and to highlight current monetary issues. Stephen’s financial expertise spans 35 years in finance, securities, insurance, mutual funds, real estate, and futures trading, during which he realized the effect of private control on the United States monetary system. He helped to establish the American Monetary Institute in 1996 to further the research that went into his monumental book The Lost Science of Money.

The 20th century saw dramatic changes in monetary policy and financial instrumentation across the globe. Some would argue that, in the process, the real purpose and value of money was forgotten. We save and spend it without contemplating it; our well-being depends on exchanging it for shelter, food, and entertainment. Any way you cut it, money is essential for survival. But what is its story? Perhaps most importantly, what theories are responsible for present-day monetary policy? Learn how the history of money has unfolded over the centuries!

Play

{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }

1 Robert February 5, 2011 at 1:02 pm

Respect The US Constitution . As long as people in power do not respect this piece of paper the free world has a big problem. Make your leaders respect it ! No Federal Reserve .No Patriot Act .No Health care reform . No War without Congress declaring war, etc etc

Reply

2 kelly January 28, 2011 at 10:34 am

Its always worthwhile listening to opposing points of view when there isn’t arguing and the presenter is allowed to answer and explain a position. The key to the success of these interviews is asking the hard questions and letting the person answer…. pressing when necessary. If they acquit them themselves well someone may be swayed, if not, thats ok too. It is important to acknowledge that we all start with different bias, principles ideology, etc and they will likely form foundation of our opinions. With these kind of interview people can really absorb the content and make their own choice.

I look forward to your upcoming show on the Fed. I spent a bunch of time last night researching the fed and I am concerned to say the least.

thanks

Reply

3 Robin Datta January 28, 2011 at 9:23 am

Fractional reserve banking is like gambling If a bank wishes to conduct its business under those arrangements, so long as it is ln full disclosure and transparent about it, there is nothing wrong. What’s wrong is that everyone is forced to participate in such an arrangement. Likewise, if the issuers of a currency choose to debase it, so long as it is done with full disclosure, it s not wrong What is wrong is that everyone is forced to participate in that currency. With many competing currencies from multiple issuers (some even private), those currencies that do not hold their value will be rejected by those who do not want a debasing currency. The problem is hot what they do, but that everyone is forced to participate. No matter what the reform, people should have alternate options.

Reply

4 kelly January 27, 2011 at 11:27 pm

An interesting interview. Thanks for pressing Stephen with some of your questions.

Some good points on the Fed. I agree, there is definite need for real reform in the Fed. However…. i came away feeling like “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss”

Replacing the secrecy of the fed with a council of appointed bureaucrats monitored by a committee of career politicians does not give me any confidence. Why wouldn’t these people be subject to influence lobbyists and special interest? Stephens assurances that it work because it will be monitored is thin at best and saying they couldn’t do any worse is simply a platitude. Count me as skeptical.

Stephen indicates fed board is in for 14 years. Congressional terms are not limited. How would this new system be any different?

Stephen asserts that whoever controls the money controls the society…. In this case the Fed. I would agree that that Fed does exercise significant control. But at the same he time seems to imply that the govt has diminishing power and actually needs more power. This is a breathtaking assertion. Am I wrong or is he saying that govt should do more? Is this just repackaged Keynesian theory ?

I don’t like the secrecy of the Fed but I know I wouldn’t trust the treasury and congress.

I read the first 4 pages of the bill. I have seen congressmen KUCINICH. I rarely agree with him BUT I have always admired his honesty and clarity on positions. I think the flaw in the plan is that Mr. KUCINICH must believe that the the rest of the bureaucrats who will be appointed and monitor are as honest as him….. They are not.

Thanks.

Reply

5 Kim Greenhouse January 28, 2011 at 4:04 am

Kelly,
Putting the Fed under the Treasury and letting Congress run things as they do would be a very similar situation to what is happening now. I agree with your points. I did want to give Mr. Zarlenga a chance to lay out where he stands, as there are a few good things in the bill that I liked. I just interviewed G Edward Griffen yesterday about his book “Creature From Jekyll Island: A Second Look at The Federal Reserve”. It will be posted today after 12pm.

Thank you for listening and taking your time to comment. We appreciate it.

Reply

Leave a Comment