They contained an ominous passage from Kennedy's speech at Columbia University, just ten days before his assassination. He is quoted as saying: "The high office of President has been used to foment a plot to destroy the Americans' freedom, and before I leave office I must inform the citizen of his plight."1 However, when Columbia University was contacted to provide a transcript of the speech, it was learned that Kennedy never spoke there—neither ten days before his assassination
It is possible that the President did make the remarks attributed to him on a different date before a different audience. Even so, it is a cryptic message which could have several meanings. That he intended to expose the Fed is the
MONETARISTS VS SUPPLY-SIDERS
But we are off the topic. Let us return to those unworkable theories regarding monetary reform. Prominent in this category are the Monetarists and the Supply-Siders. The Monetarists, adhering to the theories of Milton Friedman, believe that money should continue to be be created by the Mandrake Mechanism of the Federal Reserve, but that the supply should be determined by a strict formula established by Congress, not the Fed. The Supply-siders, represented by Arthur Laffer and Charles Kadlec, believe in formulas also, but they have a different one. They want the 1. Q u o t e d by M.J. " R e d " Beckman,
2. Letter to H o l l e e Haswell, Curator at the L o w M e m o r i a l L i b r a r y , ColumbiaU n i v e r s i t y , October 13,1987.
A REALISTIC SCENARIO
571
quantity of money to be determined by the current demand for gold. They are not talking about a true gold standard in which paper money is fully backed. By following what they call a
"gold-price rule," they would simply observe the price of gold in the free market and then tinker with the dollar by expanding or contracting the money supply to keep its relative value, compared to gold, fairly constant.
These groups are alike in their underlying philosophy. Each has a different goal and a different formula, but they agree on method: manipulation of the money supply. They share the same conviction that the free market will not work without assistance; the same faith in the wisdom and integrity of politically-created formulas, bureaus, and agencies. The Fed remains unscathed throughout all these debates because it is the ultimate mechanism for intervention.
These people don't really want to change it. They just want their turn at running it.
Occasionally a truly original proposal appears that captures one's attention. Addressing a prestigious gathering of conservative monetary theorists in 1989, Jerry Jordan suggested that the monetary base could be expanded by holding a national lottery. The government would pay out more dollars in prize money than it received in ticket sales. The excess would represent the amount by which the monetary base would expand. Presumably, if they wanted to contract the money supply, they would pay out fewer dollars than taken in. It was an intriguing thought, but Mr. Jordan was quick to add: "The problem, of course, is that there would not be any effective institutional restraint on the growth of the monetary base." Indeed, that is the problem with
BALANCED-BUDGET AMENDMENT
