According to Wharton Finance Professor Franklin Adams' and New York University Economics Professor Douglas Gale's book just published by Oxford University press, "The Anatomy of Financial Crises: Understanding Their Causes and Consequences" in their analysis of the economic history the most benign economic period was the Gold Standard Era from 1880-1913. Here banking crises did occur but were fairly limited, and currency and twin crises were limited compared to subsequent periods under the Federal Reserve system. Since the global financial system was fairly open at this time, the implication is that globalization does not inevitably lead to crises.

Essentially every classical and Austrian economist in the country is backing Congressman Ron Paul for president. The Keynesians and the neo-Keynesians simply will not admit that their concept, which sound excellent in theory, of the government saving money during the good times to help out in the bad times have not worked because of the chronic fiscal and monetary irresponsibility of the politicians. We need a stable monetary system, not one manipulated by the Federal Reserve, usually inappropriately and often with serious adverse consequences.

Vote for Ron Paul the only antiwar pro-civil liberties presidential candidate who understands economics. I assure you that is who we need in the White House to protect our economy and our country.

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1856

It's just too specific to be the product of the suggested site, and I would have to say that it demonstrates a fair understanding of the issues.

Here's what I got when I tried to get an autogenerated Federal Reserve rant:

A few weeks ago, I wrote, "The Federal Reserve is eminently uncontrollable". In this letter, I'd like to follow up on that statement. Before I begin, let me point out that we find among narrow and uneducated minds the belief that society is screaming for The Federal Reserve's pronouncements. This belief is due to a basic confusion that can be cleared up simply by stating that some people think I'm exaggerating when I say that opposing The Federal Reserve's cacodemonic, illiterate anecdotes actively and earnestly is the moral duty of every good human being. But I'm not exaggerating; if anything, I'm understating the situation. Anyone who hasn't been living in a cave with his eyes shut and his ears plugged knows that the baneful nature of The Federal Reserve's prevarications is not just a rumor. It is a fact to which I can testify.

The foregoing analysis is self-evident even if it is sometimes overlooked. Less evident are the specific ways in which we should test the assumptions that underlie The Federal Reserve's convictions. It seems to me that The Federal Reserve is both reckless and ophidian. Now there's a dangerous combination if I've ever seen one. If I wanted to brainwash and manipulate a large segment of the population, I would convince them that the future of the entire world rests in The Federal Reserve's hands. In fact, that's exactly what The Federal Reserve does as part of its quest to "solve" all our problems by talking them to death. The truth hurts, doesn't it, The Federal Reserve?

It's not that I have anything against doofuses in general. It's just that The Federal Reserve, with its craftiness and cheeky hijinks, will entirely control our country's exuberant riches by next weekend. The Federal Reserve will then use those riches to impose tremendous hardships on tens of thousands of decent, hard-working individuals. The moral of this story is that if you were to tell it that I consider its teachings antithetical to my principles as a person concerned for the good of all, it'd just pull its security blanket a little tighter around itself and refuse to come out and deal with the real world. Even though The Federal Reserve presents a public face that avoids overt Dadaism, I cannot promise not to be angry at it. I do promise, however, to try to keep my anger under control, to keep it from leading me -- as it leads The Federal Reserve -- to impact public policy for years to come. That's all for this letter. For those that don't like my views, get over it. I insist that I have as much a right to my views, and to express them, as anyone else. So when I say that The Federal Reserve has yet to acknowledge the preternatural wickedness of the blood flowing through its veins, you can agree with me or not. That's all there is to it.

Try mentally replacing "The Federal Reserve" with "Microsoyt" or "Dominoes Pizza". The output of Pakin's site makes just as much sense either way, because it never deals in specifics. The rant in the comments just doesn't fit that mold. Now find me a site dedicated to autogenerating rants against fiat currency, and you may be onto something.

The Fed is not a government agency, but a private consortium of bankers. Private banks print our currency, set interest rates and lend money to the government at interest for their own profit. The banks, in effect, own the government.

Statement Introducing the Free Competition in Currency Act

13 December 2007

Rep. Ron Paul, M.D.

Madame Speaker, I rise to introduce the Free Competition in Currency Act. This act would eliminate two sections of US Code that, although ostensibly intended to punish counterfeiters, have instead been used by the government to shut down private mints. As anti-counterfeiting measures, these sections are superfluous, as 18 USC 485, 490, and 491 already grant sufficient authority to punish counterfeiters.

The two sections this bill repeals, 18 USC 486 and 489, are so broadly written as to effectively restrict any form of private coinage from competing with the products of the United States Mint. Allowing such statutes to remain in force as a catch-all provision merely encourages prosecutorial abuse. One particular egregious recent example is that of the Liberty Dollar, in which federal agents seized millions of dollars worth of private currency held by a private mint on behalf of thousands of people across the country.

Due to nearly a century of inflationary monetary policy on the part of the Federal Reserve, the US dollar stands at historically low levels. Investors around the world are shunning the dollar, and millions of Americans see their salaries, savings accounts, and pensions eroded away by rising inflation. We stand on the precipice of an unprecedented monetary collapse, and as a result many people have begun to look for alternatives to the dollar.

As a proponent of competition in currencies, I believe that the American people should be free to choose the type of currency they prefer to use. The ability of consumers to adopt alternative currencies can help to keep the government and the Federal Reserve honest, as the threat that further inflation will cause more and more people to opt out of using the dollar may restrain the government from debasing the currency. As monopolists, however, the Federal Reserve and the Mint fear competition, and would rather force competitors out using the federal court system and the threat of asset forfeiture than compete in the market.

A free society should shun this type of strong-arm action, and the Free Competition in Currency Act would take the necessary first steps to freeing the market for competing currencies. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.