Ron Paul’s Amendment To Audit The Federal Reserve Approved
-
josda1000 wrote:
Gold and/or silver coins, maintained by the People under Congress and held by the Treasury. Not maintained AND held by a "central" private bank. Quote Selected Text
Gold and silver would be fantastic. However the central bankers have large stocks of it. They own and control most of the world's wealth. They really got us by the balls. So I think the first step would be to use United States Notes to replace the federal reserve notes. There are a lot of details and steps to liberate ourselves from the grip of the corruptoids but it must be done. No excuses, no bullshit, just do it...the sooner the better.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
No excuses, no bullsh*t, just do it...the sooner the better.
Reminds me of the Slayer lyrics to Divine Intervention: "No mercy, no reason, just PAIN!"
-
They have the power do to as they please with it. Enough theory and speculation. The fact is that ill gotten monetary powers have been consolidated and misplaced. Decentralization is the key to a more stable economy. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Nobody, I repeat, nobody needs to be in a position of power where he/she can just print money out of thin air.
-
They have the power do to as they please with it. Enough theory and speculation. The fact is that ill gotten monetary powers have been consolidated and misplaced. Decentralization is the key to a more stable economy. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Nobody, I repeat, nobody needs to be in a position of power where he/she can just print money out of thin air.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
and that the Fed performs a positive service by lessening the amplitude of these waves.
Statistics please... Regardless the Fed is super secretive private bank that has absolute power over our currency and they do as they please with it. Everyone understands why a person like you Ian, would think it is okay for a small group of unelected self-perpetuated bankers to govern with near absolute power, raping and pillaging the masses.
Less rhetoric, more intelligence.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
-
Lets get something strait. I understand this issue more than you. You are on the loosing side, always remember that. You are wrong, don't you ever forget that.
-
I'm not an historian myself, obviously. I'm a programmer, just as you probably are. But to me, a lot of this is just common sense. I should clarify; perception does play into economics a lot. If people see that something is going wrong in a sector, they will back out of it, creating a bust. But this is precisely my point: when interest rates are set higher in a sector, people back out, creating a bust. But the people backing out of a sector is not the real cause of it, is it? it's the interest rate setting. Whether it's a free market setting it because they need more money based on profit, a free market setting it because they see that the loan could be risky, or the central bank setting it "to offset inflation", it is the interest rate setting that creates the bust. the boom is when the interest rate is set lower, whether the free market businesses want to compete or the central bank wants more consuming in that sector. So I should also clarify that I do agree that central banks do not have all of the argument against them; but why not get rid of them, if they are a major cause of it? if the market can correct itself, why have the central banks add to it?
Yep, I'm a programmer, too. I do work for a hedge fund, but that doesn't make me a financial expert by any stretch... I just have a slightly-better view of the industry than some people. The market can correct itself, yes, but it's a slow process. It all comes down to psychology... Without an outside stimulus, when do people start buying? Everyone wants to get in at the bottom and sell at the top, right? The old "Buy low, sell high". So people aren't going to buy until they think it's the bottom. So how do they define the bottom? The point at which it can't get any worse, so it has to go back up. People with money to risk, when the market is falling, tend to be pessimistic, so it has to be REALLY bad before they'll jump in. That means a depression, or at least a bad recession. On the other hand, if an outside force acts, such as the Fed lowering interest rates, people see that as "Hey, the government is going to fix it. it's going to go back up. Better get in quick!" So yes, the lower interest rates help the economy... That's a well known fact. But it's the ACT of lowering them that turns things around. Even if the Fed Funds rate was zero, the bubbles would eventually pop and we'd bust... But if the rate was 5% at the top, and then the Fed lowered it to 1-2%, the act of lowering it would help convince people to move in. Yes, interest rates would rise at the top, but would they naturally lower again at the bottom, without government help? No, because interest rates only naturally lower when perceived risk goes down. The Fed, or a similar government institution, is the only entity that can really afford to LOWER rates to trigger the end of the bust. I'm rambling a little, but I'm running through this in my head as I type... The way it seems to work, at least as I see it, is that the NATURALLY-changing interest rates will drop while the economy is moving upward (Things are getting better, people are more likely to be able to repay), and will rise when the economy is moving downward (Things are getting worse, people are more likely to default)... So when it's moving upward (Without a Fed), interest rates will steadily fall (To stay competitive, since risk is low) until banks can no longer make a decent profit. When profits drop, the weaker banks will start to wobble, so to speak... That scares people, so lending slows down... Interest rates start to rise, and the cycle swings downward. Just had a half a pint of Ben & Jerry's, so my brain is a little weird right now... Hope I
-
I disagree, you are just a Wall Street groupie. Everyone knows that.
Everyone != You
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
-
Everyone != You
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Everyone != You
Yet, they still know that you are a wall street groupie.
-
Yep, I'm a programmer, too. I do work for a hedge fund, but that doesn't make me a financial expert by any stretch... I just have a slightly-better view of the industry than some people. The market can correct itself, yes, but it's a slow process. It all comes down to psychology... Without an outside stimulus, when do people start buying? Everyone wants to get in at the bottom and sell at the top, right? The old "Buy low, sell high". So people aren't going to buy until they think it's the bottom. So how do they define the bottom? The point at which it can't get any worse, so it has to go back up. People with money to risk, when the market is falling, tend to be pessimistic, so it has to be REALLY bad before they'll jump in. That means a depression, or at least a bad recession. On the other hand, if an outside force acts, such as the Fed lowering interest rates, people see that as "Hey, the government is going to fix it. it's going to go back up. Better get in quick!" So yes, the lower interest rates help the economy... That's a well known fact. But it's the ACT of lowering them that turns things around. Even if the Fed Funds rate was zero, the bubbles would eventually pop and we'd bust... But if the rate was 5% at the top, and then the Fed lowered it to 1-2%, the act of lowering it would help convince people to move in. Yes, interest rates would rise at the top, but would they naturally lower again at the bottom, without government help? No, because interest rates only naturally lower when perceived risk goes down. The Fed, or a similar government institution, is the only entity that can really afford to LOWER rates to trigger the end of the bust. I'm rambling a little, but I'm running through this in my head as I type... The way it seems to work, at least as I see it, is that the NATURALLY-changing interest rates will drop while the economy is moving upward (Things are getting better, people are more likely to be able to repay), and will rise when the economy is moving downward (Things are getting worse, people are more likely to default)... So when it's moving upward (Without a Fed), interest rates will steadily fall (To stay competitive, since risk is low) until banks can no longer make a decent profit. When profits drop, the weaker banks will start to wobble, so to speak... That scares people, so lending slows down... Interest rates start to rise, and the cycle swings downward. Just had a half a pint of Ben & Jerry's, so my brain is a little weird right now... Hope I
But there has been a mass awakening to the fact that the fed is a corrupt institution that has been given ill gotten monetary powers that are consolidated and highly concentrated. No longer will cheap psychological tricks and deliberate attempts to confuse the citizenry of this country work for the exploitation of their hard earned money, only for the decentralization of monetary powers and arrests.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
I understand this issue more than you.
In what way might the use of the Output Gap to determine monetary policy have been compromised in the USA's economy?
Bob Emmett If it ain't broke, it ain't Britain.
Cutesy words like Quantitative Easing and Output Gap are not enough to get people to forget about the fact that their money is exploited by a few men and quickly becoming worthless.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Everyone != You
Yet, they still know that you are a wall street groupie.
And I'm sure if I was working at a big company, you'd call me a corporate shill... And if I worked for a non-profit, you'd assign some sort of political agenda. Honestly, I don't care what you think, because the mere fact that you attack me instead of the issues means that you have no argument. Back in your cave, kiddo. I'm done talking to you.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
-
But there has been a mass awakening to the fact that the fed is a corrupt institution that has been given ill gotten monetary powers that are consolidated and highly concentrated. No longer will cheap psychological tricks and deliberate attempts to confuse the citizenry of this country work for the exploitation of their hard earned money, only for the decentralization of monetary powers and arrests.
Excuse me... The adults are talking. Mind stepping aside?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
and that the Fed performs a positive service by lessening the amplitude of these waves.
Statistics please... Regardless the Fed is super secretive private bank that has absolute power over our currency and they do as they please with it. Everyone understands why a person like you Ian, would think it is okay for a small group of unelected self-perpetuated bankers to govern with near absolute power, raping and pillaging the masses.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Statistics please...
Hi, Private Wee Parts. Double standards, eh? We have to provide evidence of reduced amplitude[^] (thought you knew this stuff), while you can't be bothered to provide evidence to support your assertions.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Regardless the Fed is super secretive private bank that has absolute power over our currency and they do as they please with it.
And when "power" is returned to their puppets in Congress ... ?
Bob Emmett Congress for Financial Responsibility - you know it makes sense!
-
Cutesy words like Quantitative Easing and Output Gap are not enough to get people to forget about the fact that their money is exploited by a few men and quickly becoming worthless.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Cutesy words like Quantitative Easing and Output Gap
Translated: I, Private Wee Parts, am totally out of my depth.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
their money is exploited by a few men and quickly becoming worthless.
Could be, but your posting here is not going to save them. Why don't you occupy your time more effectively?
Bob Emmett
-
Yep, I'm a programmer, too. I do work for a hedge fund, but that doesn't make me a financial expert by any stretch... I just have a slightly-better view of the industry than some people. The market can correct itself, yes, but it's a slow process. It all comes down to psychology... Without an outside stimulus, when do people start buying? Everyone wants to get in at the bottom and sell at the top, right? The old "Buy low, sell high". So people aren't going to buy until they think it's the bottom. So how do they define the bottom? The point at which it can't get any worse, so it has to go back up. People with money to risk, when the market is falling, tend to be pessimistic, so it has to be REALLY bad before they'll jump in. That means a depression, or at least a bad recession. On the other hand, if an outside force acts, such as the Fed lowering interest rates, people see that as "Hey, the government is going to fix it. it's going to go back up. Better get in quick!" So yes, the lower interest rates help the economy... That's a well known fact. But it's the ACT of lowering them that turns things around. Even if the Fed Funds rate was zero, the bubbles would eventually pop and we'd bust... But if the rate was 5% at the top, and then the Fed lowered it to 1-2%, the act of lowering it would help convince people to move in. Yes, interest rates would rise at the top, but would they naturally lower again at the bottom, without government help? No, because interest rates only naturally lower when perceived risk goes down. The Fed, or a similar government institution, is the only entity that can really afford to LOWER rates to trigger the end of the bust. I'm rambling a little, but I'm running through this in my head as I type... The way it seems to work, at least as I see it, is that the NATURALLY-changing interest rates will drop while the economy is moving upward (Things are getting better, people are more likely to be able to repay), and will rise when the economy is moving downward (Things are getting worse, people are more likely to default)... So when it's moving upward (Without a Fed), interest rates will steadily fall (To stay competitive, since risk is low) until banks can no longer make a decent profit. When profits drop, the weaker banks will start to wobble, so to speak... That scares people, so lending slows down... Interest rates start to rise, and the cycle swings downward. Just had a half a pint of Ben & Jerry's, so my brain is a little weird right now... Hope I
You know, I think you inadvertently proved my point. Go through your rambling again and think about it. And btw I went to a bar last night, got drunk, and thank God I stopped thinking about all of this for a bit. BUT! Off to shoot the protest to tape. This should be interesting.
-
Lets get something strait. I understand this issue more than you. You are on the loosing side, always remember that. You are wrong, don't you ever forget that.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You are on the loosing side, always remember that. You are wrong, don't you ever forget that.
He is on the loosing side ? Are you on the tightening side ? How is it that the winning side is illiterate ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
that reason already stated is completely bunk. you can set the dollar to whatever level, and the standard is set. you could also use two types of metal at the same time, say gold and silver. which is what's in the constitution... no coincidence or anything. let's say we take a few dollars out of circulation, right now. we could set silver at $15/oz, and gold at $1000/oz. eventually we'd, instead of passing around federal reserve notes, certificates. these certificates could be refundable at any bank, any time, for whatever value printed on the certificate. crisis solved. not hard.
josda1000 wrote:
we'd, instead of passing around federal reserve notes, certificates. these certificates could be refundable at any bank, any time, for whatever value printed on the certificate.
So change one piece of paper for another ? Big deal.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
You know, I think you inadvertently proved my point. Go through your rambling again and think about it. And btw I went to a bar last night, got drunk, and thank God I stopped thinking about all of this for a bit. BUT! Off to shoot the protest to tape. This should be interesting.
I might have lost track of who was making which point there :) The point I'm trying to make is that the boom/bust cycle happens regardless of whether you have a central bank, and regardless of whether you have fiat or gold-backed currency. The central bank just tweaks interest rates in order to make things turn around sooner on both ends, so things don't get as good or as bad. It's like reducing the amplitude on a sine wave, so it stays closer to the midpoint.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
-
josda1000 wrote:
we'd, instead of passing around federal reserve notes, certificates. these certificates could be refundable at any bank, any time, for whatever value printed on the certificate.
So change one piece of paper for another ? Big deal.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
so you guys actually support the idea of inflation, even if all of this turns out to be even? you do realize that the audit isn't just to figure out which banks got what amount of money, right? don't you realize that the idea of inflation is just to grow government and allow corporate powers to take free vacations? or is all of my rambling in vain?
josda1000 wrote:
don't you realize that the idea of inflation is just to grow government and allow corporate powers to take free vacations?
... A) Grow government? About the only plus they get from inflation is a devaluing of their debt. B) How does it give anything to corporate idiots for free? It's a rough index of increased costs, not a "You get this many free blowjobs a year" scale. If anything it drives corporate nuts, and is a major player in expected rate of return.
