Constitutional Law
-
Ah! Quite the contrary! I'm 24 years old. I got out of school about 2 years ago. I woke up just at the time when the bailouts were about to be passed; Obama and McCain were running (and NOT the only people running!). They both said they didn't want to pass the bill, but "they had to!" No. They did not have to. And that started us on the real path toward what I perceive as fascism. They passed the bill, even though both said they wouldn't. That gave me a rude awakening. So I looked for something else... I ended up looking at the Libertarian Party. And you know what? More people my age are easing into this old/new party. Because we want to be free from all of this bull. So yes, there's something to do. Go watch my video.
No. Because too many of the people in that party are just effing crazy. Seriously. You want me to take your party seriously, fix it. Get rid of the whack jobs spouting nonsense about gov't conspiracies, how we should fix the system by getting trusting you over people that are "corrupt" and people unwilling to show the powers that be that they are serious. Ron Paul ran, I was hoping he'd do better. But I am not joining a bunch of whack jobs, wingnuts and dingbats. I've got a wife I love dearly a kid to raise and none of you convince me they will be better off in your world than the current PoS one. I'm done with this silliness. I have stuff to do this weekend involving fingerpaints, playdoh and lots and lots of fun. Who knows, I might even use those things to play games with the kid.
-
Is it? How do you define "effects?" How might someone else define "effects?" The founding fathers weren't planning on electronic communications, so they couldn't exactly plan for that. See, the definition isn't necessarily obvious... When you talk on the phone, you're sending electronic signals through someone else's network... Do you own those electrons? The wires transmitting them? Same thing for Internet traffic. Now, if they break into your house to install a tap without a warrant, then that's a violation of the Constitution. If they ask your TelCo or ISP to monitor your conversations and forward them a copy, and the TelCo/ISP agrees, there's nothing you can do about that. Usually there'll be a term in your phone/ISP contract stating that they will do whatever's necessary to comply with law enforcement.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
If you didn't sign an agreement that would allow TelCo/ISP to share you data then it is illegal. (Papers and effects).
-
No. Because too many of the people in that party are just effing crazy. Seriously. You want me to take your party seriously, fix it. Get rid of the whack jobs spouting nonsense about gov't conspiracies, how we should fix the system by getting trusting you over people that are "corrupt" and people unwilling to show the powers that be that they are serious. Ron Paul ran, I was hoping he'd do better. But I am not joining a bunch of whack jobs, wingnuts and dingbats. I've got a wife I love dearly a kid to raise and none of you convince me they will be better off in your world than the current PoS one. I'm done with this silliness. I have stuff to do this weekend involving fingerpaints, playdoh and lots and lots of fun. Who knows, I might even use those things to play games with the kid.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
But I am not joining a bunch of whack jobs, wingnuts and dingbats. I've got a wife I love dearly a kid to raise and none of you convince me they will be better off in your world than the current PoS one.
Oh wow so you're gonna call me names just because you want to stick with the status quo and don't want to try to actually fix something and make it at least a little better? Yeah, I really do suggest you go back to your birdhole.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Maybe you missed the part where nearly all of that interest is GIVEN back to the Treasury.
After they take out another loan, yeah they get it right back and then they have to give a little bit more. Also, why would the treasury have to pay more in interest from a high amount of money if all the fed has to to is enter that number into a computer and wire the newly created "money" to the treasury? Why not a flat fee? All dollars in circulation are federal reserve notes which were loaned out to some entity with interest attached. The loan can never be paid back because to pay for interest one must take out another loan from the fed. Again, why can't congress (the government) issue its own currency like the constitution mandates? Why must a private corporation have all that unregulated power to create fiat money and loan it out to any entity (foreign or domestic)(in secrecy) and congress ask for interest loans from it?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
all the fed has to to is enter that number into a computer and wire the newly created "money" to the treasury
That's the point I was making above, or somewhere in this thread (Starting to lose track). The Fed can't create money! Only the Treasury can. What you're missing is the concept of fractional reserve banking. I was going to type out an explanation about this, but Wikipedia has a better one. Check out this link under "Money Creation" and scroll down a little to the table. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_reserve_banking#Money_creation[^] It's a bit hard to explain... This isn't something the Fed does, but something all banks do... When you deposit money into a savings account, they're actually lending that money out to other people (Even though it's not really theirs). That's where your interest comes from. The Fed does the same thing... It lends money to the government that other banks deposited in it. It takes some time to understand, but the gist of it is that the Fed is NOT printing new money or just incrementing a value in their accounts. All of the money comes from somewhere else.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
-
If you didn't sign an agreement that would allow TelCo/ISP to share you data then it is illegal. (Papers and effects).
But it's not illegal, because "effects" doesn't necessarily include data being transmitted over someone else's wires. You may want to define it that way, but it's not written that way. That's what law is all about... Interpreting language. That's why contracts are so long and difficult to read... Because they try to make sure everything is defined exactly, leaving no room for interpretation.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
-
The very act of "balance" is totally against the ideals of a free market economy. the government should not be a part of this. the problem is, this is a bank; it is not part of the government. they're working in collusion; why hasn't HR1207 passed yet?! there are 309 cosponsors of this bill; if TPTB really wanted it to pass, it would have under suspension already. The very fact that they have not passed it for 10 months means that they are hiding something. And by "they" I mean both the FR and our federalnational government.
Well, the problem with the free market economy is the naturally-occurring "boom and bust" cycle. This was what sparked the Great Depression (Though admittedly, the Fed exacerbated the situation in a classic screw-up). The market works in cycles... Things go up, and people invest and lend money... Then something happens and we all hit the top... That's when they talk about "bubbles bursting"... Then things turn downward, and people get scared. They lend less money and invest less, which causes the economy to suffer more. Everything goes into a downward spiral... Recession, depression... Eventually enough people start to think "This is as bad as it's going to get. Now's the time to invest while stuff is cheap", and it starts going back up. The purpose of the Fed is to lessen those cycles. Think lowering the amplitude of a waveform. When we get into that big boom and everything is shooting upward, they raise interest rates to slow things down a little. Then, when it turns downward and things start to get low, they drop interest rates to give everyone a boost. The goal is to make things a little closer to constant.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
all the fed has to to is enter that number into a computer and wire the newly created "money" to the treasury
That's the point I was making above, or somewhere in this thread (Starting to lose track). The Fed can't create money! Only the Treasury can. What you're missing is the concept of fractional reserve banking. I was going to type out an explanation about this, but Wikipedia has a better one. Check out this link under "Money Creation" and scroll down a little to the table. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_reserve_banking#Money_creation[^] It's a bit hard to explain... This isn't something the Fed does, but something all banks do... When you deposit money into a savings account, they're actually lending that money out to other people (Even though it's not really theirs). That's where your interest comes from. The Fed does the same thing... It lends money to the government that other banks deposited in it. It takes some time to understand, but the gist of it is that the Fed is NOT printing new money or just incrementing a value in their accounts. All of the money comes from somewhere else.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
I've been researching this subject for over a year now. Let's see how the fractional reserve process works, in the absence of a central bank. I set up a Rothbard Bank, and invest $1,000 of cash (whether gold or government paper does not matter here). Then I "lend out" $10,000 to someone, either for consumer spending or to invest in his business. How can I "lend out" far more than I have? Ahh, that's the magic of the "fraction" in the fractional reserve. I simply open up a checking account of $10,000 which I am happy to lend to Mr. Jones. Why does Jones borrow from me? Well, for one thing, I can charge a lower rate of interest than savers would. I don't have to save up the money myself, but simply can counterfeit it out of thin air. (In the nineteenth century, I would have been able to issue bank notes, but the Federal Reserve now monopolizes note issues.) Since demand deposits at the Rothbard Bank function as equivalent to cash, the nation's money supply has just, by magic, increased by $10,000. The inflationary, counterfeiting process is under way.
-
No. Because too many of the people in that party are just effing crazy. Seriously. You want me to take your party seriously, fix it. Get rid of the whack jobs spouting nonsense about gov't conspiracies, how we should fix the system by getting trusting you over people that are "corrupt" and people unwilling to show the powers that be that they are serious. Ron Paul ran, I was hoping he'd do better. But I am not joining a bunch of whack jobs, wingnuts and dingbats. I've got a wife I love dearly a kid to raise and none of you convince me they will be better off in your world than the current PoS one. I'm done with this silliness. I have stuff to do this weekend involving fingerpaints, playdoh and lots and lots of fun. Who knows, I might even use those things to play games with the kid.
Imagine being in your nice comfortable boat on the river, you hear a faint white-noise but you think its just in your head and disregard it. You go twiddling around watching your favorite ballgame as you puff away on a nice cigar with your bottle of liqueur next to you. You hear it get louder and louder so you flip your TV to the yuppie-cool mainstream news station and watch the infobabe give her report. She is telling you that the crazies are talking about an upcoming catastrophe and that it doesn't exist. She has shiny lip gloss and cleavage so you believe her. Then she goes on to say its time to sacrifice your livelihood for the planet, you smile with joy because she is looking at you with her doey eyes. Some time later you notice you are going just a little bit faster, and the white-noise is louder than ever, you laugh and say "What a bunch of ignorant BS!" while you lay back down to think about how you want to "save the planet" with the infobabe. Then suddenly you start accelerating really fast and the white-noise becomes unbearably loud. You crap your pants and fall to your demise.
-
Well, the problem with the free market economy is the naturally-occurring "boom and bust" cycle. This was what sparked the Great Depression (Though admittedly, the Fed exacerbated the situation in a classic screw-up). The market works in cycles... Things go up, and people invest and lend money... Then something happens and we all hit the top... That's when they talk about "bubbles bursting"... Then things turn downward, and people get scared. They lend less money and invest less, which causes the economy to suffer more. Everything goes into a downward spiral... Recession, depression... Eventually enough people start to think "This is as bad as it's going to get. Now's the time to invest while stuff is cheap", and it starts going back up. The purpose of the Fed is to lessen those cycles. Think lowering the amplitude of a waveform. When we get into that big boom and everything is shooting upward, they raise interest rates to slow things down a little. Then, when it turns downward and things start to get low, they drop interest rates to give everyone a boost. The goal is to make things a little closer to constant.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Well, the problem with the free market economy is the naturally-occurring "boom and bust" cycle.
The boom and bust cycle is manufactured by the central bankers. As we can see, we are in a severe bust after the bubbles created by the fed's loose lending and inflationary policies. now we have over 20% real unemployment.
-
Well, the problem with the free market economy is the naturally-occurring "boom and bust" cycle. This was what sparked the Great Depression (Though admittedly, the Fed exacerbated the situation in a classic screw-up). The market works in cycles... Things go up, and people invest and lend money... Then something happens and we all hit the top... That's when they talk about "bubbles bursting"... Then things turn downward, and people get scared. They lend less money and invest less, which causes the economy to suffer more. Everything goes into a downward spiral... Recession, depression... Eventually enough people start to think "This is as bad as it's going to get. Now's the time to invest while stuff is cheap", and it starts going back up. The purpose of the Fed is to lessen those cycles. Think lowering the amplitude of a waveform. When we get into that big boom and everything is shooting upward, they raise interest rates to slow things down a little. Then, when it turns downward and things start to get low, they drop interest rates to give everyone a boost. The goal is to make things a little closer to constant.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
The dollar has lost over 95% of its value since the fed was established. That is almost the entire US economy and other countries economies that use the dollar, stolen over the period of 100 years. What could be done with many 20 trillion of dollars (in today's value) (World Bank states there over 40 trillion dollars in all the worlds currencies (but US dollar is dominate so I estimated half)) spent over the period of 100 years? That is about 500 million dollars spent EVERY DAY for 100 YEARS! Why would you think that stealing that much money from the people is okay? What was-andis that money being spent on? How is it being used to change society? What kind of damage has been inflicted upon the world with all of this misplaced monetary power.
-
I've considered going into Law, but I don't have the patience for it and I could never do criminal defense without having to quietly murder a sizable fraction of my clients. But I doubt that's the education you're referring to. Between my understanding of how to write a difficult to dispute or misunderstand document, and how much history I've read and generally grasp. I get the feeling I know considerably more than you do about this entire thing. But since I have a different view than you, I'm apparently not educated. Have you tried actually proving me wrong rather than insulting me? I've posed a couple of questions which would allow you to do just that.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Well, the problem with the free market economy is the naturally-occurring "boom and bust" cycle.
The boom and bust cycle is manufactured by the central bankers. As we can see, we are in a severe bust after the bubbles created by the fed's loose lending and inflationary policies. now we have over 20% real unemployment.
... You know we can prove this wrong by moving back along the data trail to when central banking was simply impractical to have any form of control over a global or even national economy. The fact that it can happen in different industries at different times should also lend credence to it not being some grand conspiracy, but rather the result of a panicky consumer base.
-
I've been researching this subject for over a year now. Let's see how the fractional reserve process works, in the absence of a central bank. I set up a Rothbard Bank, and invest $1,000 of cash (whether gold or government paper does not matter here). Then I "lend out" $10,000 to someone, either for consumer spending or to invest in his business. How can I "lend out" far more than I have? Ahh, that's the magic of the "fraction" in the fractional reserve. I simply open up a checking account of $10,000 which I am happy to lend to Mr. Jones. Why does Jones borrow from me? Well, for one thing, I can charge a lower rate of interest than savers would. I don't have to save up the money myself, but simply can counterfeit it out of thin air. (In the nineteenth century, I would have been able to issue bank notes, but the Federal Reserve now monopolizes note issues.) Since demand deposits at the Rothbard Bank function as equivalent to cash, the nation's money supply has just, by magic, increased by $10,000. The inflationary, counterfeiting process is under way.
If you'd researched it, you wouldn't make such an obvious mistake. They can't lend out money they don't have. They can lend out money that they're borrowing from someone else. You deposit $1000 into Bank A. It sits in your savings account. Bank A keeps $200 of that around, in case you want to withdraw some, and lends the other $800 to Bank B. Bank B keeps 20% ($160) and lends the rest ($640) to Bank C. So what do they have now? Bank A has $1000 ($200 + what Bank B owes them) Bank B has $800 ($160 + what Bank C owes them) Bank C has $640 Suddenly that $1000 has now multiplied to $2440 in just two steps. That's how fractional reserve banking works. It's banks lending out the money that they're borrowing. The issue of course is that if you go to withdraw $1000, Bank A doesn't have that much on them... Of course, if Bank A has a hundred customers, each of which have $1000 in there, then they have $20,000 ($1000 x 100 x 20%) in their vaults, and can pay you from that. If more than 20 of their customers decided to close their accounts, before the bank can adjust by recalling some of its loans, then you have what's known as a "bank run"
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
-
The very act of "balance" is totally against the ideals of a free market economy. the government should not be a part of this. the problem is, this is a bank; it is not part of the government. they're working in collusion; why hasn't HR1207 passed yet?! there are 309 cosponsors of this bill; if TPTB really wanted it to pass, it would have under suspension already. The very fact that they have not passed it for 10 months means that they are hiding something. And by "they" I mean both the FR and our federalnational government.
josda1000 wrote:
The very act of "balance" is totally against the ideals of a free market economy.
The existence of personal property rights is against a free market as well, but I've yet to meet anyone who supported a free economy who didn't support them as well. I mean in a free economy, who's to tell a company they can't sell your possessions? Anything like that would be regulation. Which is pretty much why I dismiss a pure free-economy as nonsense. It isn't really a strawman when people really mean a free market, but if you don't mind a bit of regulation in there you should be using the regulated market, or mixed economy.
-
The dollar has lost over 95% of its value since the fed was established. That is almost the entire US economy and other countries economies that use the dollar, stolen over the period of 100 years. What could be done with many 20 trillion of dollars (in today's value) (World Bank states there over 40 trillion dollars in all the worlds currencies (but US dollar is dominate so I estimated half)) spent over the period of 100 years? That is about 500 million dollars spent EVERY DAY for 100 YEARS! Why would you think that stealing that much money from the people is okay? What was-andis that money being spent on? How is it being used to change society? What kind of damage has been inflicted upon the world with all of this misplaced monetary power.
Stop this tired rhetoric... If you had your money in a savings account or CDs for those years, making 3% a year, you'd still have the same spending power as before. The only people hurt by normal inflation are the ones who keep their money under their beds instead of letting it circulate in the economy.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
-
Ah! Quite the contrary! I'm 24 years old. I got out of school about 2 years ago. I woke up just at the time when the bailouts were about to be passed; Obama and McCain were running (and NOT the only people running!). They both said they didn't want to pass the bill, but "they had to!" No. They did not have to. And that started us on the real path toward what I perceive as fascism. They passed the bill, even though both said they wouldn't. That gave me a rude awakening. So I looked for something else... I ended up looking at the Libertarian Party. And you know what? More people my age are easing into this old/new party. Because we want to be free from all of this bull. So yes, there's something to do. Go watch my video.
josda1000 wrote:
And that started us on the real path toward what I perceive as fascism.
I have to ask, how much time have you spent looking into the roots of fascism. I have a rather morbid interest in the subject myself and I have to say this is hardly the approach taken by either of the early fascist movements, nor is it even a remote analog of them.
-
josda1000 wrote:
And that started us on the real path toward what I perceive as fascism.
I have to ask, how much time have you spent looking into the roots of fascism. I have a rather morbid interest in the subject myself and I have to say this is hardly the approach taken by either of the early fascist movements, nor is it even a remote analog of them.
Fascism is the merger of state and corporate powers. Federal Reserve. Bailouts. Unempolyement, conservatively, is around 17%. Wars going on with us involved for around 100 years. Yeah, I'd say this is becoming, if not already, fascist. The more we just do nothing, the more that government will encroach. Along with the corporations. Check out Gerald Celente... he'll tell you about the mafia and how that's exactly what we have.
-
josda1000 wrote:
The very act of "balance" is totally against the ideals of a free market economy.
The existence of personal property rights is against a free market as well, but I've yet to meet anyone who supported a free economy who didn't support them as well. I mean in a free economy, who's to tell a company they can't sell your possessions? Anything like that would be regulation. Which is pretty much why I dismiss a pure free-economy as nonsense. It isn't really a strawman when people really mean a free market, but if you don't mind a bit of regulation in there you should be using the regulated market, or mixed economy.
No... personal property rights is against socialism/communism and their ideals. Personal property gives people freedom to do what they want. They can freely enter contracts (common law) as they see fit. They can exchange/barter/sell as they see fit. The opposite of personal property is governmental/public property. If that were the case, it'd be divided and rationed to be equal among the populous. If that's the way you want it, fine. But don't make me buy orange juice when I just want more cranberry juice. Don't give me an equal portion of cole slaw when I want double the fries. You see where I'm going with this? I don't want public healthcare, I want to buy my own healthcare and create a contract with a company that way. That's why you're totally misguided, in my opinion.
-
I've considered going into Law, but I don't have the patience for it and I could never do criminal defense without having to quietly murder a sizable fraction of my clients. But I doubt that's the education you're referring to. Between my understanding of how to write a difficult to dispute or misunderstand document, and how much history I've read and generally grasp. I get the feeling I know considerably more than you do about this entire thing. But since I have a different view than you, I'm apparently not educated. Have you tried actually proving me wrong rather than insulting me? I've posed a couple of questions which would allow you to do just that.
You can start with that documentary. Its an excellent piece of work that is enjoyable to watch and informative, until then your questions are on hold.
-
If you'd researched it, you wouldn't make such an obvious mistake. They can't lend out money they don't have. They can lend out money that they're borrowing from someone else. You deposit $1000 into Bank A. It sits in your savings account. Bank A keeps $200 of that around, in case you want to withdraw some, and lends the other $800 to Bank B. Bank B keeps 20% ($160) and lends the rest ($640) to Bank C. So what do they have now? Bank A has $1000 ($200 + what Bank B owes them) Bank B has $800 ($160 + what Bank C owes them) Bank C has $640 Suddenly that $1000 has now multiplied to $2440 in just two steps. That's how fractional reserve banking works. It's banks lending out the money that they're borrowing. The issue of course is that if you go to withdraw $1000, Bank A doesn't have that much on them... Of course, if Bank A has a hundred customers, each of which have $1000 in there, then they have $20,000 ($1000 x 100 x 20%) in their vaults, and can pay you from that. If more than 20 of their customers decided to close their accounts, before the bank can adjust by recalling some of its loans, then you have what's known as a "bank run"
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
The fed can create new money. If they couldn't do that then we wouldn't have inflation.