I know these ideas are flawed. Please feedback (scenarios) to help me figure out why

I always hear people complain about problems and solutions. People complain about other people complaining and not offering solutions, and rarely does anyone pose a solution. I always see infighting from the so-called left who are arguing for more regulation of “bad government” and “bad business” and the so-called right who worry that ties between government and bureaucrats are the cause of most problems and the solution couldn't possibly be solved by intervention.

I would argue that the biggest problem is that we can't see past to agree on is that the problem is that government right now is not a government of the people. Individual citizens have little stake in their ruling circle, yet the taxpayer seems to bear the brunt of the policies set forth by these men. The problem is who controls the discourse. If we, the people, pushed for positive reform and regulation, and took a stake in our governing bodies, big government and regulation wouldn't be a bad thing, because it would not be government as we know it, it would be an arm of the populous. The congress was set up to represent the people, and if the will of the populous was followed and not lobbyists for big banks and corporations, then it would be our law to reject or repeal when we felt necessary.

There are a few answers to the question of an alternative to the Federal Reserve Bank Note problem. Many solutions are offered, and while I'm not an expert on any of them, I've always felt that when the cause of a problem is centralization, the solution is not one centralized solution, it would be a basket of ideas, such as below.

The Constitution of the United States is one example of this. When the Royal Throne of England was a centralized power sticking its boot on the throat of the colonies, the answer was a constitution that established three co-equal branches of government to perform their own respective duties including checks and balances.

So as we discuss “Ending the Fed” what do we do in its stead? I have some ideas I've been kicking around in my head that I hope to get some feedback on, please don't beat me down too bad, as I'm not as well versed on alternatives to this problem or economic issues as some of the more educated.

First, I always hear that the gold/silver standard is too limited. So while it is indeed part of the solution, it couldn't possibly be the viable complete end game. Inflation is required to be able to fight wars and kick start during recessions.

Regulation and taxation of banks and stocks and trade should be treaded lightly, but I think it's also part of the solution.

My plan is first to Federalize the Federal Reserve Bank and place it under the control of the Treasury again, with strict rules in place for a Congressional vote before each centralized issuance of currency.

The Federal Treasury Bank would print Two (2) currencies. The “Greenback” and the “Silverback”

The Greenback would be essentially fiat, only it would be interest free, used for treasury bonds, authorized for government spending and international trade. Issuance of greenbacks would require a budget plan. The greenback cannot be used for loans through the financial sector, only for outright trade, or government spending loans. There can be no “Fractional Reserve Banking” of greenbacks.

The “Silverback” would be used in the financial sector. Issuance of the Silverback is done through the banking sector. The Silverback can also be inflated, through fractional reserve banking. Although 75% of physical reserves of physical SILVER required for any bank to make a loan. The treasury would be forced to re-value the Silverback (against amounts of silver) monthly, and banks would need to report loans and reserves. As part of this re-valuation, the Greenback would also have purchase power value adjustments vs. Silverbacks.

I keep hearing three problems about Wall Street. A. “Short” selling B. Futures trading speculators C. Audit games. All three of these problems can be solved by simply giving the shareholder a real share in the risk, regardless of how short a person owns the share.

First, require all futures commodity trading to receive shipment of 25% of the product. Secondly, require stocks to be held for at least 7 days. I know this sounds extreme, but stocks are not supposed to be a gambling tool, if you want a share in the company, become a long term shareholder not a gambler. It's called “Investing” for a reason.

Federal taxation would come from import goods, luxury taxes, and excise taxes. I'm also in favor of the inheritance tax, as long as it limits itself to personal, individual profits in excess of 75% the value of any company involved in the transfer of wealth.

I know that much of these ideas are EXTREMELY idealistic, and against the very nature of some policies of the freedom movement. Please help educate me as to the fallacies of these lines of thinking.