"I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our 
 Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the 
 reduction of the administration of our government to the genuine 
 principles of its Constitution; I mean an additional article, taking 
 from the federal government the power of borrowing. I now deny 
 their power of making paper money or anything else a legal tender. 
 I know that to pay all proper expenses within the year, would, in 
 case of war, be hard on us. But not so hard as ten wars instead of 
 one. For wars would be reduced in that proportion."

 - Thomas Jefferson in 1798 in a letter to John Taylor

This is exactly why I don't fault Ron Paul for refusing to get involved with 911 conspiracy stuff. No matter how much evidence you get pointing to their guilt, it will never be enough as long as they have the money printing machines.

There is a difference between tactical victories (winning a 911 argument) and strategic (taking away their money printing apparatus). It is the later that wins the war.

Well said. Helping to End the Fed is the most important thing most of us can do right now. And what better time to rally people against this abomination than now when the economy's in the shitter and folks are pissed? We have a chance to blow this scam wide open; let's be sure to take it.

Not only fed but all central banks

I dont know if government being able tp print money is the problem. the problem is that the government should be able to do it "interest free". The problem in my mind arises when the government allows a private corporation to purchase money from the mint, which just prints it, at cost and then said government allows this private bank to "loan" them the money that the government itself created, with interest on top of the added inflation that printing new bills causes. First the interest doesnt exist in the system, only the principal, so it creates a never ending cycle of debt in order to pay the interest, second it asks for more bills in return then that which was originally printed, meaning more money in the hands of banks and less out there for consumers to spend. Its like a giant double whammy that the taxpayers get hit with.

Please explain this in greater detail. Link?

[deleted]

Read up on Fractional Reserve. They don't loan out 100 bucks to 10 people, they loan out that 1000 bucks to those 10 people. . So they get the interest on 10,000 dollars. What a scam.

Texas, you are right about that. I was just trying to make a simple point without getting too complicated.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/19268/Banking-TimeLine

Do you have that in a PDF so that I can print it out? I really don't want to pay for a scribd account and it's too much to read in a browser windows. Thanks!

http://www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmith_Bankers.htm

Awesome, thanks.

Everyone should read this page lordspesh has posted. It'll open your eyes and blow your mind.

Can everyone say french revolution.

Almost seems like the smart thing to do would be to let China take over since this could never happen with them, never.

Unfortunately I dont :(. I just read it in the browser, a long time ago on a different site. The scribd is just the first site I found on a google search when I posted. definitely worth the IMHO, if you can make it through it all.

Shucks. Thanks anyway.

If you'd like, I could create a script that converts the text on the website to PDF. It wouldn't take me long. Why would I do this? 1) scribd ripping off authors has pissed me off 2) it'd be a fun learning experience for me (although I already know everything I need to do)

Do this, please. Just for the sake of doing it and because I might use it for the same reason.

Oops I completely forgot about this... should I still do it?

Nah I aint worried about it.

I think this is the first time i have seen "shucks" actually typed. I'm 36.

Fake swear words are my new hobby.

[deleted]

Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Check my other posts in this thread, asshole. I know damn well that they loan money they dont have, which was given to them by the fed, at minimal interest, the Fed having received it from the mint after only having paid the cost of printing bills. They make money loaning money they didnt have in the first place and then expect us to pay interest.

[deleted]

Hey, you are the one who started the name calling. You want a more detailed description of how banks create money from debt, check out the movie "Money as Debt" or if you are Canadian and want to see it from a Canadian perspective and even have the concept confirmed by one of our former PM's as well as a couple of our other party leaders then check out the "Oh Canada Movie". Both can be found by simple google search. Im pretty sure the first one can be found on google videos as a documentary and the second has its own site, with movies linked to in parts on youtube. Want a little history on how this situation came to be? Well then you will see in my other posts in this thread I posted this link http://www.scribd.com/doc/19268/Banking-TimeLine . Read the whole thing, it is long but quite interesting.

I have no idea why i replied in such way. I was piss ass drunk

Its all good dude, lol

The government is not allowed to print money at will. The US Constitution prevents it. The Federal Reserve is a creation that allows them to get around it. See above. The "interest" is paid by the US government to the Federal Reserve when it borrows.

i realize this, but the government does have the ability to print money and distribute it interest free. If Im not mistaken, it is the Federal Reserve Act that gives this ability to the Fed, which then distributes the money to other banks, usually at an interest rate. They then loan that money to people at an even higher interest rate. Since the start of the recession the Fed has been giving 0 interest or near 0 interest loans to the banks. The Fed is chaired by owners of banks. So these owners of banks are having the Fed print money at cost, and then are loaning it to themselves interest free, then loaning it out to the public at a 30%(give or take) interest rate. The Fed also loans to the government, money it never had before, that it purchased at cost, to the government with interest. This is the issue I have with the current banking system.

The Federal Reserve exists solely to allow the US government to avoid the already existing Constitutional restrictions on money. They set up the Federal Reserve as a private bank, and the money it issues, the Federal Reserve Note, i.e. the current dollar, is a debt between the holder and the Federal Reserve, not the US government.

So technically the dollars you hold from the Federal Reserve are a contract between you and a private institution, and thus Constitutional restrictions on money, borrowing and taxation do not apply. Instead the Congress can create legislation that cover these transactions. Dollars issued by the US government ended in 1971, silver removed from coinage in 1968, and gold currency confiscated in 1933.

Because of this arrangement, the government is free to exercise enormous control over the public because it can pass laws, not bound by the constitution, over the money issued by the Federal Reserve. BTW, none of this has really been tested in the courts. Until the internet came around, most people had no means to understand it.

Exactly and up until 1964 we were given an "escape valve" - which is that you could go redeem your paper $1 FRN for silver at any bank (4 quarters, 2 halves, 10 dimes, etc).

This is an interesting (and rarely discussed) issue: Namely, coins come from US Mint, a properly authorized and constitutionally approved full government entity.

So, the debt note you held with the "Federal Reserve, Inc" was in effect backed by the government given that redemption could occur at every bank for proper "US Dollars" (eg. Constitutionally defined as a specific weight of silver).

This provided a facade of legitimacy since in effect there were 2 currencies in circulation with a fixed 1 for 1 exchange rate: Proper US Dollars (silver) and FRN's (paper). The Federal Reserve was required to ensure this redemption via their commercial banking apparatus (they bought the silver coins from the US Mint at cost) to have available to customers for redemption.

In 1965 all of this changed as silver was removed from circulation - which fundamentally removed "US Dollars" from circulation, leaving only FRN's now.

An interesting argument one could make (and probably legally sound), is that US Dollars still exist in the form of Silver American Eagles produced by the US Mint (which the Mint gives the value of $1 USD). Its just that the exchange rate is no longer fixed....it is now floating (currently silver is $19.5 so its 19.5 FRN's to the US Dollar).

The implications of this would be fairly profound. Take your tax liability for instance, you didn't earn $100,000 US DOLLARS last year....you earned $100K Federal Reserve Notes. Which is only about $5.5K USD, putting you in a vastly lower tax bracket.

Likewise a courts decision that Party A should pay Party B some specified amount of "US Dollars" is in actuality not correct either.

Like you said, much of this has never been tested.....the most interesting test of this was the Kahre case in Las Vegas. In which an employer paid his people in Silver and Gold American Eagles, thereby they could only claim the "face value" of money received.

The IRS couldn't convict him on the first attempt, but tried 2 or 3 times in various guises and eventually found a jury to convict. Ultimately, the conviction was for some ancillary charge not directly related to this core issue (like he was "hiding assets" by putting them under his girlfriends name).

This brings us to the core issue, which is that it doesn't matter how constitutional and well-grounded your legal approach is....in the end, a group of criminals are going to steal from you one way or another.

Shirley,

This can't be a perfectly paired "post and comment" worthy of "save" or "award nomination".

Cannit?

Too bad that five years later, Jefferson reversed his position and had the federal government borrow money from Great Britain for the Louisiana Purchase.

Listen up people, collector7 has cut to the heart of the matter.

This comment should be reposted every month or so to remind people of the root cause of of this stuff.

The Creature From Jeckyll Island by G. Edward Griffin is an eye-opening exposition about this topic.

PDF: http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5318883/Creature_From_Jekyll_Island_by_G._Edward_Griffin_.PDF

AUDIO: http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4457906/The_Creature_From_Jekyll_Island_-_G._Edward_Griffin

I was at Borders today and surprised to see that book available there.

I said the same thing ten years ago to a friend of mine who had hundreds of books. He said that they wouldn't miss an opportunity to make some money and that it doesn't make any difference anyways.

[deleted]

The tricky thing is when people only say about half to three quarters of those things than many people consider them to be controlled opposition.

[deleted]

I think that kind of thinking doesn't leave much room for 98% of the people out there. If they know and speak about 0-50% what a recipient believes is correct then they are idiots and then 50-99% is controlled opposition whereas if they are 100% identical with their outspoken beliefs matching what someone else believes is the only valid scenario.

[deleted]

but but. With the sound byte machinery in place I don't want my sources of information saying something that in three seconds will be broadcast out a thousand times to demonize them.

Check out Ron Paul. I know that he knows shit deeper than what he says on network television or newsletters. I know because of the circles he associates with and because of his brother. I don't want him saying shit that is five levels deeper than what an average person can understand. I just don't. Some people want the real thing that can always speak the darkest fears of their mind in any circumstance. For me, I just want to be informed. If that means code worded shit here and there that is good enough for me. Why waste pearls on swine as the saying goes only to give your enemies ammunition? If they want to learn then woo hooh what a time to live in.

I personally hang in cafes and have many times been the victim of eavesdroppers who sit there and listen for sound bytes. It sucks.

Bad sarcasm........ dumbass??? You decide.

I found Money as Debt a real eye opener.

Agreed that we need to audit the Fed and put the whole thing before the public, but how is this done when the news media is fully complicit in the deception?

So they issue their report and the Fed is dirty, dirty, dirty. So what? Do you seriously believe CNN or The New York Times would give that any coverage?

What about when they issued the 9-11 Commission Report which talked about how resentment over U.S. support for Israeli atrocities against the Palestinian people was the reason we were attacked. CNN and The New York Times gave that, the most important information there was to have about 9-11 -- why we were attacked -- and kept it from the American public.

Omission is an incredibly powerful tool. Look at how they recently buried the story about Netanyahu talking about how he killed Oslo. This is incredibly important news if you're an American... look at what we've spent in trying to make a peace process happen over there, look at what we've spent in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Where's the outrage? Well, nobody knows about it... how can you be outraged about something you no nothing about?

And so it will be with news that the Fed is thoroughly corrupt. Nobody will find out. Except us. Who already knew, and were already pissed off about it all. What changes?

So I would just suggest that it is the fact of control over our news media -- and it really doesn't matter whom you attribute that control to -- that should be central in our efforts, and that it is everything else that is a distraction. Put out the political officers and bring back journalism and stories like the Fed will arrive of their own virtue.

That the banks, that defense, that big oil are acting the way they do today should surprise nobody. But the news media? That's a failing on a completely different level.

It's betrayal.

The pen is mightier than the sword, and the body count of the U.S. news media proves this beyond any doubt.

END THE FED.

The power to create money out of nothing and decide who gets to use it is far too much of an advantage over the rest of us.

These people cannot lose no matter what they do.

I'm for the central banks immediate abolition and replacement with some more responsible system that gives this level of destructive and manipulative power to no one.

Yep. Just read about Andrew Jackson and Nicholas Biddle.

Yes! It is ALL about the money. If we 'fix' this problem, most other problems will be fixed by default. Also, we never had world wars until we had a central bank.

Jeez, I wonder if technology had anything to do with our ability to wage war worldwide.

Airplanes. Bombs. Machine guns. Radar. Tanks. Submarines. Telecommunications. Mass production facilities...

1907 - 1913: Creation of the Federal Reserve System

World War I - 6 April 1917

I guess we invented Airplanes. Bombs. Machine guns. Radar. Tanks. Submarines. Telecommunications. Mass production facilities in 1917...

We have had wars going back to the beginning of time, never a world war.

You don't know your history very well, do you?

Every one of those things had been invented by World War I. They were also all used in the war, except for radar, which wasn't used until World War II.

Obviously better than you...

Obviously "better" means "much worse" in your vocabulary. How exactly does not knowing what technology was used in WWI constitute a better understanding of history? I'd love to hear your explanation. Moreoever, I challenge you to find a single error in what I wrote.

It's easy to cherry pick Wikipedia for information to support your pre-existing views. Next time, try reading the articles on the world wars themselves. Their actual causes are explained in detail. You might learn something new and, god forbid, have a change of position based on facts.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_World_War_I
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_World_War_II

Funny. I don't see anything about central banks.

We have had wars, large and small, since the beginning of time, everywhere, regardless of the technology. The US establishes a central bank and four years later, WW1. Technology is irrelevant. If we had a central bank in 1850, we would of had a world war with whatever technology we had at the time. Your missing the point of the ability created by printing money, rather then collecting money from the people. Lincoln needed money for the war and it was a problem. The war needed funding in order to take place. That was the point, not technology.

WW1 & WW2 were not caused by having a central bank, they were able to happen because of a central bank. These wars cost a lot of money. They never would of happened if the American people had to pay the bill prior to the war taking place. That sir, is my point.

I appreciate your clarifications, and I apologize for being rude. You are apparently well-intentioned, and I will do my best to respond courteously to your claims.

The US establishes a central bank and four years later, WW1.

You probably already know this, but that statement implies nothing by itself. To suggest that there's a link between the two events is a post hoc fallacy.

Technology is irrelevant.

I strongly disagree. The ability to travel quickly and communicate over long distances allows military coordination on much larger scales than could be accomplished otherwise. Additionally, mass production is crucial for supplying the vast numbers of personnel which would be needed to wage global-scale war. I could go on and on about the relevance of technology, but time is limited.

If we had a central bank in 1850, we would of had a world war with whatever technology we had at the time.

No one can possibly know for certain what would have happened. Besides, Sweden had a central bank in 1664, and they didn't have a world war. England created a central bank 30 years after that, and they didn't have a world war either. In general, central banks didn't become widespread until after World War I.

[WW1 & WW2] were able to happen because of a central bank

What's your evidence that a central bank was the only way the wars could have been paid for?

They never would of happened if the American people had to pay the bill prior to the war taking place.

See my other comment.

I Didn't take it as you being rude. It is a lively debate. Sometimes we get caught up in the moment. This could be a very long discussion. I need to work now and will give you at least one more response later. Till then take care.

Some people are more sensitive than others. You never know.

I'm busy for the next several hours as well, but I'll respond when I get back.

EDIT: Plans were postponed...

According to my research, the primary sources of US financing for both world wars was taxes and war bonds. In other words, the money did come from the people. (See Revenue Act of 1916, Liberty bond, US home front during WWII, Revenue Act of 1940, Lend Lease.)

Note that many of the US allies had their own central banks. And yet they still borrowed money from the US. That tells me that the ability of a central bank to print money isn't enough to support a massive war effort.

Also, as I understand, during the Civil War the Confederacy tried printing money to pay their debts. The result was hyperinflation. The money was virtually worthless. The Union, on the other hand, raised its money largely by loans from war bonds and by taxation (Federal Income Tax in 1861, Revenue Act of 1862, Revenue Act of 1864). They also printed money, but not nearly as much. The resulting inflation was moderate.

The financing of the Civil War also serves as a reminder that you don't need a central bank to print money.

Connecting a few more dots, ...

First Ever: Zionist Wikipedia Editing Course

PROTOCOLS OF THE MEETINGS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION

The History of the House of Rothschild

... huh... imagine that.

EDIT: Added titles/headlines to URLs in response to request for relevance.

Imagine what? What does any of this have to do with the role of the central banks during the world wars?

Perhaps you could explain the relevance of these articles before expecting me to read them to their entirety.

Done via edit.

That's an awful lot to read when I still don't understand the connection.

Could you do me the favor of explaining in your own words what Zionism and the Rothschilds have to do with central banks during the world wars?

in your own words

It's easy to cherry pick [...] information to support your pre-existing views. Next time, try reading the articles

Are you trying to make a point? I have no pre-existing views on this matter; I just started learning about it a few hours ago. Nor am I cherry picking information. In fact, I'm asking for new information! So if you're trying to use my own words against me, you're failing.

All I'm asking is that you explain the relevance of the articles before I take the time to read them.

EDIT: I read the first article. I see no connection between it and the role of central banks during the world wars. There was no mention of central banks. There was no mention of world wars.

I'm beginning to think that you can't explain the relevance of the articles you posted because they're not relevant. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.

Are you trying to make a point?

Whoosh!

I see no connection [...]

Yet you say you have no pre-existing views.

I've already made several points which you have shown no interest in exploring on your own; rather, you've demanded that I spoon-feed you information you already should have had before entering into this discussion.

• Point #1: Quoting a Wikipedia article with reference to any matter remotely relating to Zionist agenda has already been compromised by that agenda (the article you supposedly read).

• Point #2: Tying the aforementioned compromise to the longer, broader history of compromises which are contained in the Zionist agenda. (Because you made assertions of knowing your history.)

  • Point #3: (Again, because you made assertions of knowing your history.) Laying out and identifying the direct historical parallel to the history of the Rothschild family (if this hasn't made a connection to central banks and their roles in world wars, then it is YOU, fellow redditor, who is without question in possession of pre-existing views, no matter how vocally you may assert to the contrary).

• Point #4: You are coming across as a blathering hypocrite in the way you leap from one side of the online debate strategem to the other: always demanding more of your fellow conversants than you're willing to contribute in your vacuous rants.

Read the information. Once you've read (yes, it's a lot. but, likewise, yes, it's relevant), we'll have something to discuss. Until then, you're just high volume line noise in my mailbox.

EDIT: A few words from Bob Dylan

We never had world wars before we had stoplights, either.

Has nothing to do with it. Think how difficult it would be to gather the resources for a world war if all the people had to pony up the money before the war started. Being able to create unlimited 'money' outta thin air makes it possible. Hell, the war in Iraq would not of ever happened if we all got a bill in the mail, prior to the start and we had to pay it for the government to be able to buy the bullets and bombs.

Surely you have evidence to support the notion that the world wars never would have happened without central banks.

What exactly is that evidence?

Common sense. Like, I know I will never live in a million dollar mansion, because I don't have a million dollars! And unless I find some convenient way of printing the money, no matter how much I plan it, talk about it and say I am going to buy one, it just is not going to happen.

You could earn, borrow, steal, or win the money. Common sense tells me that there are other options. Also, common sense isn't evidence.

I'm just not convinced that merely printing money is the only way to pay for expensive things like world wars. Anyway, I'll continue this topic in our other thread to avoid confusion.

And think how hard it would be to control people without a SECRET CONSPIRACY of STOPLIGHTS! TRAFFIC = FREEDOM VOTE RON PAUL

I figured you were just trolling...

That’s it exactly. Dozens of personal agendas, but they all point back to the money. What these tools plan to do with the money once they get it all is the real mystery.

Relevant

Relevant2

Couldn't agree more. SO much time and energy is wasted on all this other nonsense.

Even if they can't arbitrarily print money they can still steal it through taxation. The only thing you could count on is to be robbed of your savings to finance everything wrong with the world. The only way to beat the system is to not be a part of it or to be in control of it.

Here's an interesting read for anyone who cares - http://www.scribd.com/doc/19268/Banking-TimeLine

The problem is, last time people did that it got redirected by fascists into a racial thing. Any attempt to push that again would have to walk a very fine line, and avoid the groups who think banks = code word for Jews.

Who is behind the bankers

Vatican/pope http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1676.cfm

Part1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=648XFZgjGqE

Part2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGg40mHaRFw

Part3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnxf1CsgHO0

Part4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VUX5Q_7itM

What are we talking here, a world conspiracy or just a US centered one? Because if the only conspiracy that matters is the US one than that's lame, I can just move away.

It's understandable to try to simplify the work, but we don't really know the real point of the conspiracy. I refuse to accept this caricature that they are some kind of super villains from a James Bond movie.

I think the central banks are in England mostly. But I don't really know. I also think that the sum of the "conspiracy" is something like complacent slavery. Complacent might not be the right word. But the idea that normal necessary things are exploited for out labor, and compounded with interests. Its a viscous cycle that if you want to be apart of the system you have to abide by the rules, cause that is the game. As deplorable as it is to the entire human race. We could conceivably otherwise feed cloth and shelter the world, and be exploring space. And taking our species peacefully into the future.

Say something in english bro. I miss that language

Yes, please. Although, fundamentally, the problem is taxation, or the existence of government.

Let's fucking start somewhere. That seems like a good portion of the root cause.

Only problem is, it's not really a controversy. Controversy lends itself the idea of secrecy. This is no secret.

s/ontroversy/onspiracy.

FTFY

"Controversy" has no intimate relationship with "secrecy".

I'm guessing you were making an allusion to the "elephant in the room" metaphor - the "un-secret" of which no one speaks.

• Living standards on the whole increased worldwide despite the establishment of central banks.

• The countries with the highest standards of living all have central banks. Furthermore, these countries were some of the first to adopt central banks. For example, Sweden has the oldest central bank.

• Corruption and economic inequality existed long before central banks.

Conclusion: Central banks aren't the core problem.

Lol you're getting voted down along with anyone else who doesn't get all their facts from long conversations on the city bus.

That makes a lot of sense dude.

www.real-privacy.ua.tc

And it's the central banks that are run by Lizard People?

Its the sheeple, not the bankers.

^-- THIS! A million times this! Please upboat! Why is this getting downvotes? When will you sheeple get it? When you get screwed, it's ALWAYS YOUR FAULT.

</end sarcastic bipolar double-entendre>

wow these sheeple are defending the illuminati by blaming one group LOL fucking asshole sheep

yes blaming elite smart people instead of ignorant people who dont want to learn and make fun of you for following conspiracies, yes thats rational, fuck this controlled jew subreddit

Jesus christ, get this nonsense off the front page.

Don't automatically downvote me-- it is super lame how the bury squad of conspiracy theorists won't let any alternate views be seen.

I am a liberal who believes that the Federal Reserve serves vital roles in our system. Let me start by pointing out many programs that are similar to the Reserve that liberals do embrace. For instance, Freddie and Fannie intervene in markets in ways that favor wide-spread home-ownership. The new Secretary of Health position will be able to dictate price levels, earnings allowances, and competitor entries within the health care sector. The Social Security program specifically plans to use its authority to shortchange some contributors in favor of maintaining solvency.

Of course I am not against any of these programs. Nor am I against the Federal Reserve. Providing a strong controller for our financial system is common sense. It is also a widespread practice, except in Somalia. Facilitating credit transactions and manipulating the money supply is as much "selling out to the banks" as expanding health care is "selling out to the hospitals". Grow up wingnuts, Obama and the rest of we level-headed liberals are tired of you.

(*Finance major, not self-educated in library while reading 9/11 conspiracy materials.) Thank you for your time.

Fine. Keep the Federal Reserve. But how's about letting us audit the books? Or let us count the gold that's supposed to be in Fort Knox?

If you're willing to pay trillions of dollars to people for their amazing oversight ability, how's about we get to audit them occasionally?

And if they're so good at oversight, how come they were just about the last people to see that the housing market had to crash eventually?

Doesn't the overseer assume some responsibility for their lack of oversight?

It seems like we have a sharp difference in perspective. In my opinion, your overall view is discolored by the fact that you don't understand the value of financial markets. Your perception of financial issues comes from seeing only the pop-culture elements of the marketplace that are broadcast in the news.

If you are just re-stating the mantra of "government accountability" than I don't know why you are so upset. The federal reserve is only as corrupt as any city council, and is not some grand "blank"-order conspiracy.

On the issue of an audit: I and the general public obviously cannot oppose the principle behind an audit. That idea is foolish on its face. Do not expect a normal procedure to apply to the FR. Many parties are constantly angling for oversight of FR actions, and this shouldn't be misinterpreted as a fight to keep malicious information sealed.

Your painting: "[we pay them] trillions of dollars"

My perspective: The governors and head of the FR are not very highly paid. These people are intelligent and experienced and could make more money in the private sector. I assume you are also trying to mis-characterize the other money that is "given" to the FR.

Your painting: "they were just about the last people to see that the housing market had to crash eventually."

My perspective: These people have financial sector backgrounds and understand our system as well as anyone in the world. Politics played a role in delaying our action on housing. In fact, an unopposed reserve would have been much more proactive.

I have addressed your comments and questions with some substantiation and in a straight-forward manner. I did not dodge any of your major points. You owe me the respect of not downvoting my original post so that I can be heard and constructively discuss my views with everyone.

Like TexasMojo said you don't mention anything about transparency. That is the problem with main stream financial janitor-mechanics like yourself. You learn how to operate the dials and levers and you are taught only a small subset of the economic knowledge. Read John Perkins. You were taught what you know to further justify the exploitive system and to help process loans on either a micro or macro scale. Nothing more.

from the Death Gate Cycle:

The Kicksey-winsey, a grand machine intended to align the floating continents and provide them with water (water being a direct byproduct of its production cycle), as well as manufacture all the processed goods desired by the other worlds, never became properly active. The dwarves, also known as Gegs, not truly understanding its purpose, effectively became slaves to the machine, worshipping it after a fashion as an artifact of their gods (the Sartan) who had placed them there as its caretakers.

That is how I see you.

Haha destraht you will have to respect me a little if you want to hear my best points. I'm an open-minded liberal, I wasn't raised by bankers or priests. Maybe I am owed as much credit for my mainstream financial education as you are for reading a few reactionary, secondhand critiques.

What makes you think you are more apt to have "connected all the dots" than the rest of us? Am I on the super-secret-skull-and-bones-payroll too? Oh, and keep on spouting your played-out kennings to see if they impress people on your bus route.

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

Your argument , rather than being intelligent is mere agreement with the system which is criminally insane.

If the current system, one in which, as you say, the central banks are a necessary part of capitalism then capitalism must be changed to something that works.

This current arrangement makes the banks the only possible ultimate winner and all others including your self absolute losers.

Banks will and must, according to their system, end up owning everything that is, plus all future output in return for the simple act of deciding who gets the use of money or who does not.

You're comment just astounds me. I mean.. do you even know what you are talking about? Do you even know what the Federal Reserve does or what capitalism is? And wtf do coalmines have to do with anything?

The fact that you come here to spew your ignorant views which lack any logic or reason leaves me to think that there is no point in even trying to argue with you. Educate yourself or go back into your hole you greasy caveman.

[deleted]

Well, that explains it, then.

Yeah whatever, I have other majors. Do you all support abolishing fannie and freddie, because they interfere with the housing market? What about abolishing the new health care reform provisions that put the Secretary of Health unilaterally in charge of major decisions? Is it that you don't understand capitalism, or is it that you just cherry-pick topics you don't really understand, to shout about them?

I don't want to get rid of any of these programs, and I especially don't want to get rid of the Federal Reserve. Providing a strong economic chaperon is as much "selling out to the banks" as expanding health care is "selling out to the hospitals". Grow up wingnuts, Obama and the rest of we level-headed liberals are tired of you.

I was at Borders today and surprised to see that book available there.

PDF: http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5318883/Creature_From_Jekyll_Island_by_G._Edward_Griffin_.PDF

AUDIO: http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4457906/The_Creature_From_Jekyll_Island_-_G._Edward_Griffin

http://www.scribd.com/doc/19268/Banking-TimeLine

You're comment just astounds me. I mean.. do you even know what you are talking about? Do you even know what the Federal Reserve does or what capitalism is? And wtf do coalmines have to do with anything?

The fact that you come here to spew your ignorant views which lack any logic or reason leaves me to think that there is no point in even trying to argue with you. Educate yourself or go back into your hole you greasy caveman.

Your argument , rather than being intelligent is mere agreement with the system which is criminally insane.

If the current system, one in which, as you say, the central banks are a necessary part of capitalism then capitalism must be changed to something that works.

This current arrangement makes the banks the only possible ultimate winner and all others including your self absolute losers.

Banks will and must, according to their system, end up owning everything that is, plus all future output in return for the simple act of deciding who gets the use of money or who does not.

Exactly and up until 1964 we were given an "escape valve" - which is that you could go redeem your paper $1 FRN for silver at any bank (4 quarters, 2 halves, 10 dimes, etc).

This is an interesting (and rarely discussed) issue: Namely, coins come from US Mint, a properly authorized and constitutionally approved full government entity.

So, the debt note you held with the "Federal Reserve, Inc" was in effect backed by the government given that redemption could occur at every bank for proper "US Dollars" (eg. Constitutionally defined as a specific weight of silver).

This provided a facade of legitimacy since in effect there were 2 currencies in circulation with a fixed 1 for 1 exchange rate: Proper US Dollars (silver) and FRN's (paper). The Federal Reserve was required to ensure this redemption via their commercial banking apparatus (they bought the silver coins from the US Mint at cost) to have available to customers for redemption.

In 1965 all of this changed as silver was removed from circulation - which fundamentally removed "US Dollars" from circulation, leaving only FRN's now.

An interesting argument one could make (and probably legally sound), is that US Dollars still exist in the form of Silver American Eagles produced by the US Mint (which the Mint gives the value of $1 USD). Its just that the exchange rate is no longer fixed....it is now floating (currently silver is $19.5 so its 19.5 FRN's to the US Dollar).

The implications of this would be fairly profound. Take your tax liability for instance, you didn't earn $100,000 US DOLLARS last year....you earned $100K Federal Reserve Notes. Which is only about $5.5K USD, putting you in a vastly lower tax bracket.

Likewise a courts decision that Party A should pay Party B some specified amount of "US Dollars" is in actuality not correct either.

Like you said, much of this has never been tested.....the most interesting test of this was the Kahre case in Las Vegas. In which an employer paid his people in Silver and Gold American Eagles, thereby they could only claim the "face value" of money received.

The IRS couldn't convict him on the first attempt, but tried 2 or 3 times in various guises and eventually found a jury to convict. Ultimately, the conviction was for some ancillary charge not directly related to this core issue (like he was "hiding assets" by putting them under his girlfriends name).

This brings us to the core issue, which is that it doesn't matter how constitutional and well-grounded your legal approach is....in the end, a group of criminals are going to steal from you one way or another.

I think that kind of thinking doesn't leave much room for 98% of the people out there. If they know and speak about 0-50% what a recipient believes is correct then they are idiots and then 50-99% is controlled opposition whereas if they are 100% identical with their outspoken beliefs matching what someone else believes is the only valid scenario.

Haha destraht you will have to respect me a little if you want to hear my best points. I'm an open-minded liberal, I wasn't raised by bankers or priests. Maybe I am owed as much credit for my mainstream financial education as you are for reading a few reactionary, secondhand critiques.

What makes you think you are more apt to have "connected all the dots" than the rest of us? Am I on the super-secret-skull-and-bones-payroll too? Oh, and keep on spouting your played-out kennings to see if they impress people on your bus route.