Today was pretty quiet
-
You really are making a fool out of yourself.[^] Alt[^] By the way that is you being smacked.
modified on Thursday, September 10, 2009 5:01 PM
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The Fed does not create money in order to pay itself.
The fed creates the money that it loans out, and then collects interest on that money it created. So yes, it does fund itself with the printing press.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
For this purpose it both creates AND DESTROYS money
Yes, but the value of the dollar has been devalued by 95% since its inception.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The Fed is technically independent, but it is supervised by congress.
But it does not provide any detail about its operations. Here is what the fed tells the congress.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
It is in no way secretive about its operations.
:laugh: CSPAN CLIP 1[^] CSPAN CLIP 2[^] CSPAN CLIP 3[^] CSPAN CLIP 4[^] CSPAN CLIP 5[^] The fed is a purely unconstitutional and criminal organization. You did not prove me wrong on anything, you did not discuss how every dollar in circulation is debt that must be paid back with interest attached. A central bank has no place in the Untied States of America. The power to make DEBT-FREE money belongs to congress by majority vote, that is the constitutional law. There are no legal or acceptable alternatives.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
For this purpose it both creates AND DESTROYS money, intentionally inflating or deflating the currency. This regulation of the money supply is supposed to reduce the effects of the standard economic cycle (Booms and recessions).
I want to add that booms and busts are created by the fed, to extract real
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
But it does not provide any detail about its operations.
Straight from its web site... Try getting off YouTube for a bit and look at some real information: http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/bst.htm[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Yes, but the value of the dollar has been devalued by 95% since its inception.
Yes, intentionally. This is what the government wants. As I said, it encourages investment, which keeps money circulating in the economy. Explain to me exactly how it's a "bad" thing, keeping in mind that salaries tend to increase to compensate for this. If money didn't decrease in value over time, it would encourage people to shove it all under their mattress (Or the equivalent), when that money would be put to better use reinvested in the market.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
The fed creates the money that it loans out, and then collects interest on that money it created. So yes, it does fund itself with the printing press.
You're obviously missing the point. It both creates and destroys money. It doesn't just keep inventing new money to fund itself. It serves as the beginning and end point for the currency. It's the point at which money flows into or out of the market. And you're completely misreading my point. It does not create the money IN ORDER TO FUND ITSELF. It creates the money in order to manipulate the market interest rates and regulate the economy. The "Fed Funds Rate" isn't just a magic number they set. It's a measurement of how much banks charge each other for overnight loans. In order to change this number, the Fed has to create new money (To lower the rate) or destroy existing money (To raise the rate). It's not just saying "Ok, we lost ten million bucks this month. Someone go add that much to our bank account!" And you're also missing one subtle point here... Its profits go directly to the US Treasury! (http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqfrs.htm#6[^])
Proud to have
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
But it does not provide any detail about its operations.
Straight from its web site... Try getting off YouTube for a bit and look at some real information: http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/bst.htm[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Yes, but the value of the dollar has been devalued by 95% since its inception.
Yes, intentionally. This is what the government wants. As I said, it encourages investment, which keeps money circulating in the economy. Explain to me exactly how it's a "bad" thing, keeping in mind that salaries tend to increase to compensate for this. If money didn't decrease in value over time, it would encourage people to shove it all under their mattress (Or the equivalent), when that money would be put to better use reinvested in the market.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
The fed creates the money that it loans out, and then collects interest on that money it created. So yes, it does fund itself with the printing press.
You're obviously missing the point. It both creates and destroys money. It doesn't just keep inventing new money to fund itself. It serves as the beginning and end point for the currency. It's the point at which money flows into or out of the market. And you're completely misreading my point. It does not create the money IN ORDER TO FUND ITSELF. It creates the money in order to manipulate the market interest rates and regulate the economy. The "Fed Funds Rate" isn't just a magic number they set. It's a measurement of how much banks charge each other for overnight loans. In order to change this number, the Fed has to create new money (To lower the rate) or destroy existing money (To raise the rate). It's not just saying "Ok, we lost ten million bucks this month. Someone go add that much to our bank account!" And you're also missing one subtle point here... Its profits go directly to the US Treasury! (http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqfrs.htm#6[^])
Proud to have
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Try getting off YouTube for a bit and look at some real information:
Those were direct from congressman and the fed chairman himself. I suggest you view them. I get my information direct from the source.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Explain to me exactly how it's a "bad" thing
It discourages savings by punishing those who want to save money, and it sends out a false sense of economic growth, it takes money out of the hands of the people who earned and saved it and gives it to people who didn't earn it. Its pure criminal theft, its modern slavery.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
It both creates and destroys money.
Yeah, thats why the dollar is 95% gone and as of now being completely destroyed. Booms and busts are created by the fed, to extract real wealth from the economy. Its kind of like a big wave washing inland and as it goes back into the ocean it pulls out a lot of material with it. Here is a court case that proves that the fed is a private for profit corporation[^]
modified on Thursday, September 10, 2009 4:13 PM
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Try getting off YouTube for a bit and look at some real information:
Those were direct from congressman and the fed chairman himself. I suggest you view them. I get my information direct from the source.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Explain to me exactly how it's a "bad" thing
It discourages savings by punishing those who want to save money, and it sends out a false sense of economic growth, it takes money out of the hands of the people who earned and saved it and gives it to people who didn't earn it. Its pure criminal theft, its modern slavery.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
It both creates and destroys money.
Yeah, thats why the dollar is 95% gone and as of now being completely destroyed. Booms and busts are created by the fed, to extract real wealth from the economy. Its kind of like a big wave washing inland and as it goes back into the ocean it pulls out a lot of material with it. Here is a court case that proves that the fed is a private for profit corporation[^]
modified on Thursday, September 10, 2009 4:13 PM
Direct quotes from politicians are meaningless... The entire job of a political speech is to spin the facts to suit someone's agenda... If you haven't learned that by now, I don't know what rock you've been hiding under. What matters are the actual numbers, and those are freely accessible. They even provide ways for you to automate data downloads, so you can grab their weekly reports easily. Looks pretty transparent to me.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
It discourages savings by punishing those who want to save money
That's the point! Reinvestment sparks economic growth. If I shove my money under a mattress, sure, my savings are safe. If, however, I invest my money in the stock market, or even directly into a small business, I'm helping businesses grow, which helps our economy. As a middle ground, I can stick my money in a savings account or a CD, and collect risk-free interest (Since those are backed by the FDIC) at a lesser rate.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
eah, thats why the dollar is 95% gone and as of now being completely destroyed.
Are you completely ignoring everything I say? I can see why most people just call you an idiot or ignore you... Wake up to reality. This "95%" figure you keep spouting is just a twist of the increase in the CPI (Consumer Price Index), a measure of inflation. It means that give or take, things cost 20 times as much as they did in 1913, almost a HUNDRED years ago. You're also earning something like 20 times more than you would have in 1913, so the only real effect is the devaluation of the cash under your mattress, which goes right back to the previous point.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Booms and busts are created by the fed, to extract real wealth from the economy. Its kind of like a big wave washing inland and as it goes back into the ocean it pulls out a lot of material with it.
Now you're finally touching on some real criticism. There has been a lot of controversy over whether the Fed is creating the problem or helping to solve it. This is more related to the level of competence of the Fed governors, than it is to the system itself, and I can't really speak to the validity of this claim. As for your link... I'm not disputing that the Fed is a for-profit entity. As my link showed, the profits go to the US Treasury, NOT into the pockets of shareholders or executives.
-
Direct quotes from politicians are meaningless... The entire job of a political speech is to spin the facts to suit someone's agenda... If you haven't learned that by now, I don't know what rock you've been hiding under. What matters are the actual numbers, and those are freely accessible. They even provide ways for you to automate data downloads, so you can grab their weekly reports easily. Looks pretty transparent to me.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
It discourages savings by punishing those who want to save money
That's the point! Reinvestment sparks economic growth. If I shove my money under a mattress, sure, my savings are safe. If, however, I invest my money in the stock market, or even directly into a small business, I'm helping businesses grow, which helps our economy. As a middle ground, I can stick my money in a savings account or a CD, and collect risk-free interest (Since those are backed by the FDIC) at a lesser rate.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
eah, thats why the dollar is 95% gone and as of now being completely destroyed.
Are you completely ignoring everything I say? I can see why most people just call you an idiot or ignore you... Wake up to reality. This "95%" figure you keep spouting is just a twist of the increase in the CPI (Consumer Price Index), a measure of inflation. It means that give or take, things cost 20 times as much as they did in 1913, almost a HUNDRED years ago. You're also earning something like 20 times more than you would have in 1913, so the only real effect is the devaluation of the cash under your mattress, which goes right back to the previous point.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Booms and busts are created by the fed, to extract real wealth from the economy. Its kind of like a big wave washing inland and as it goes back into the ocean it pulls out a lot of material with it.
Now you're finally touching on some real criticism. There has been a lot of controversy over whether the Fed is creating the problem or helping to solve it. This is more related to the level of competence of the Fed governors, than it is to the system itself, and I can't really speak to the validity of this claim. As for your link... I'm not disputing that the Fed is a for-profit entity. As my link showed, the profits go to the US Treasury, NOT into the pockets of shareholders or executives.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The entire job of a political speech is to spin the facts to suit someone's agenda... If you haven't learned that by now
The institution that has unchecked power over the monetary system and can print as much money as it wants with very little oversight doesn't have a political agenda?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
That's the point!
I'm sorry but that is corrupt, and is one of the prime reasons our economy is in the trash. The way it should be is that if you have savings, you can invest it yourself. Instead you advocate it be stolen through devaluation by a select few, and invested by them at their discretion. Please read these quotes. "They [the Federal Reserve] are the most avariciously predatory parasites upon a body politic in world history. The national bonded indebtedness is heavily held by the Fed. The process by which it acquires our bonds is not beyond understanding, but it is beyond belief." George E. Hiscott IV, Former Intelligent Officer "History records that the MONEY-CHANGERS have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling the money and its issuance." James Madison "Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of Bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create deposits." Sir Josiah Stamp, President of the Bank of England in the 1920. "By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose." John Maynard Keynes
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Are you completely ignoring everything I say?
No, but what you say is ludicrous. You can argue for the fed all y
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The entire job of a political speech is to spin the facts to suit someone's agenda... If you haven't learned that by now
The institution that has unchecked power over the monetary system and can print as much money as it wants with very little oversight doesn't have a political agenda?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
That's the point!
I'm sorry but that is corrupt, and is one of the prime reasons our economy is in the trash. The way it should be is that if you have savings, you can invest it yourself. Instead you advocate it be stolen through devaluation by a select few, and invested by them at their discretion. Please read these quotes. "They [the Federal Reserve] are the most avariciously predatory parasites upon a body politic in world history. The national bonded indebtedness is heavily held by the Fed. The process by which it acquires our bonds is not beyond understanding, but it is beyond belief." George E. Hiscott IV, Former Intelligent Officer "History records that the MONEY-CHANGERS have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling the money and its issuance." James Madison "Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of Bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create deposits." Sir Josiah Stamp, President of the Bank of England in the 1920. "By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose." John Maynard Keynes
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Are you completely ignoring everything I say?
No, but what you say is ludicrous. You can argue for the fed all y
This debate is getting far too one-sided... If you're going to start spewing out random quotes, there's really no point in trying to have an intelligent conversation. Quotations are meaningless.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
The institution that has unchecked power over the monetary system and can print as much money as it wants with very little oversight doesn't have a political agenda?
I never said that. I said to look at the numbers, not the speeches. The numbers tell the truth.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
I'm sorry but that is corrupt, and is one of the prime reasons our economy is in the trash. The way it should be is that if you have savings, you can invest it yourself. Instead you advocate it be stolen through devaluation by a select few, and invested by them at their discretion.
So you're not opposed to the Fed itself. You're opposed to the entire concept of floating currency (I think that's the right term - Currency not backed by gold). I'm not interested in your subjective quotations. I'm interested in facts. The fact is that when money is reinvested into the economy, the economy tends to benefit. When money is taken out of the economy, it contracts. Scenario 1 (Fixed currency): The economy starts on a downturn. People get scared and pull their money out of the market. Less money = Less credit = Less lending... The economy contracts more. Downward spiral. Depression. Crash. Scenario 2 (Floating currency): The economy starts on a downturn. The Fed lowers interest rates and injects money, causing inflation. Savings accounts start to give less interest, so people are encouraged to put their money into the market. Currency is more plentiful, so lending is easier, so businesses borrow more money to expand. The economy levels out and starts back up, at which point the Fed reverses this action by bringing interest rates back to normal.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
No, but what you say is ludicrous. You can argue for the fed all you want, but that power belongs to the congress and ultimately the people.
As I've said multiple times, the Fed is supervised and overseen by congress. The FOMC (Federal Open Market Committee) is a group of congressmen who closely watch the actions of the Fed to ensure it's acting in the interests of the people. If the Fed starts to stray from the path, they can introduce new legislation t
-
This debate is getting far too one-sided... If you're going to start spewing out random quotes, there's really no point in trying to have an intelligent conversation. Quotations are meaningless.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
The institution that has unchecked power over the monetary system and can print as much money as it wants with very little oversight doesn't have a political agenda?
I never said that. I said to look at the numbers, not the speeches. The numbers tell the truth.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
I'm sorry but that is corrupt, and is one of the prime reasons our economy is in the trash. The way it should be is that if you have savings, you can invest it yourself. Instead you advocate it be stolen through devaluation by a select few, and invested by them at their discretion.
So you're not opposed to the Fed itself. You're opposed to the entire concept of floating currency (I think that's the right term - Currency not backed by gold). I'm not interested in your subjective quotations. I'm interested in facts. The fact is that when money is reinvested into the economy, the economy tends to benefit. When money is taken out of the economy, it contracts. Scenario 1 (Fixed currency): The economy starts on a downturn. People get scared and pull their money out of the market. Less money = Less credit = Less lending... The economy contracts more. Downward spiral. Depression. Crash. Scenario 2 (Floating currency): The economy starts on a downturn. The Fed lowers interest rates and injects money, causing inflation. Savings accounts start to give less interest, so people are encouraged to put their money into the market. Currency is more plentiful, so lending is easier, so businesses borrow more money to expand. The economy levels out and starts back up, at which point the Fed reverses this action by bringing interest rates back to normal.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
No, but what you say is ludicrous. You can argue for the fed all you want, but that power belongs to the congress and ultimately the people.
As I've said multiple times, the Fed is supervised and overseen by congress. The FOMC (Federal Open Market Committee) is a group of congressmen who closely watch the actions of the Fed to ensure it's acting in the interests of the people. If the Fed starts to stray from the path, they can introduce new legislation t
He does seem hung about this, maybe he would feel better in a muslim country as they have much closer system to what hes proposing(well I think hes proposing, as he has been very clear he doesnt like whats there, but not very clear n the replacement) And look at the advancements they have made, all these superpower muslin countries that have stron non oil based ecomonmy. they have no (untill oil) financial system to support the development of business and as such stagnated allowing the west with its loan based banking systems to expand
Go away and research the subject, analyze the options for and against, understand the problem and them come back when you agree with me.
-
This debate is getting far too one-sided... If you're going to start spewing out random quotes, there's really no point in trying to have an intelligent conversation. Quotations are meaningless.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
The institution that has unchecked power over the monetary system and can print as much money as it wants with very little oversight doesn't have a political agenda?
I never said that. I said to look at the numbers, not the speeches. The numbers tell the truth.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
I'm sorry but that is corrupt, and is one of the prime reasons our economy is in the trash. The way it should be is that if you have savings, you can invest it yourself. Instead you advocate it be stolen through devaluation by a select few, and invested by them at their discretion.
So you're not opposed to the Fed itself. You're opposed to the entire concept of floating currency (I think that's the right term - Currency not backed by gold). I'm not interested in your subjective quotations. I'm interested in facts. The fact is that when money is reinvested into the economy, the economy tends to benefit. When money is taken out of the economy, it contracts. Scenario 1 (Fixed currency): The economy starts on a downturn. People get scared and pull their money out of the market. Less money = Less credit = Less lending... The economy contracts more. Downward spiral. Depression. Crash. Scenario 2 (Floating currency): The economy starts on a downturn. The Fed lowers interest rates and injects money, causing inflation. Savings accounts start to give less interest, so people are encouraged to put their money into the market. Currency is more plentiful, so lending is easier, so businesses borrow more money to expand. The economy levels out and starts back up, at which point the Fed reverses this action by bringing interest rates back to normal.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
No, but what you say is ludicrous. You can argue for the fed all you want, but that power belongs to the congress and ultimately the people.
As I've said multiple times, the Fed is supervised and overseen by congress. The FOMC (Federal Open Market Committee) is a group of congressmen who closely watch the actions of the Fed to ensure it's acting in the interests of the people. If the Fed starts to stray from the path, they can introduce new legislation t
Ian Shlasko wrote:
This debate is getting far too one-sided... If you're going to start spewing out random quotes, there's really no point in trying to have an intelligent conversation. Quotations are meaningless.
Don't disregard those quotes like that. They describe the monetary power of central banking very well, and they were spoken by highly intelligent respectable high-level people.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I never said that.
That is the way it is though.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Scenario 1 (Fixed currency): The economy starts on a downturn. People get scared and pull their money out of the market. Less money = Less credit e= Less lending... The economy contracts more. Downward spiral. Depression. Crash.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Scenario 2 (Floating currency): The economy starts on a downturn. The Fed lowers interest rates and injects money, causing inflation. Savings accounts start to give less interest, so people are encouraged to put their money into the market. Currency is more plentiful, so lending is easier, so businesses borrow more money to expand. The economy levels out and starts back up, at which point the Fed reverses this action by bringing interest rats back to normal.
Scenario two compounds the problem by causing inflation and fear of inflation so they rush to gold and silver as we see today, the Chinese government is buying up gold and silver. The economic theories you mention don't work out in reality as we can clearly see today. You can't force people to spend their money, stealing it is not a solution.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
As I've said multiple times, the Fed is supervised and overseen by congress.
Your definition of supervised and overseen are clearly different than most people's. The central bankers use every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling the money and its issuance. This is clearly a pointless debate, you work for a Wall Street hedge fund. X| I think that clearly shows your bias towards corrupt entities.
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
As to the factual content, very little.
You wouldn't know whats fact if it slapped you in the face. There is nothing I stated that is fictional, there is nothing you can quote that is not fact.
Bob Emmett wrote:
I think that a democracy should have regulatory control of its agencies
This isn't a democracy it is a constitutional republic, and the fed is a purely unconstitutional and criminal institution. You are simply an idiot.
Bob Emmett wrote:
I am not a citizen of the USA and my opinion is not relevant.
Obviously. Your opinions are insignificant.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You wouldn't know whats fact if it slapped you in the face.
:rolleyes:
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
There is nothing I stated that is fictional, there is nothing you can quote that is not fact.
Opinions are not facts.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
This isn't a democracy it is a constitutional republic
A federal constitutional republic, little Miss Picky.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
and the fed is a purely unconstitutional and criminal institution.
Saying doesn't make it so.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You are simply an idiot.
:rolleyes:
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Your opinions are insignificant.
And yet you take the time to respond to them. So magnanimous.
Bob Emmett I solemnly declare that I do not wish the USA to be more like Britain, Canada, or Oz.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
This debate is getting far too one-sided... If you're going to start spewing out random quotes, there's really no point in trying to have an intelligent conversation. Quotations are meaningless.
Don't disregard those quotes like that. They describe the monetary power of central banking very well, and they were spoken by highly intelligent respectable high-level people.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I never said that.
That is the way it is though.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Scenario 1 (Fixed currency): The economy starts on a downturn. People get scared and pull their money out of the market. Less money = Less credit e= Less lending... The economy contracts more. Downward spiral. Depression. Crash.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Scenario 2 (Floating currency): The economy starts on a downturn. The Fed lowers interest rates and injects money, causing inflation. Savings accounts start to give less interest, so people are encouraged to put their money into the market. Currency is more plentiful, so lending is easier, so businesses borrow more money to expand. The economy levels out and starts back up, at which point the Fed reverses this action by bringing interest rats back to normal.
Scenario two compounds the problem by causing inflation and fear of inflation so they rush to gold and silver as we see today, the Chinese government is buying up gold and silver. The economic theories you mention don't work out in reality as we can clearly see today. You can't force people to spend their money, stealing it is not a solution.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
As I've said multiple times, the Fed is supervised and overseen by congress.
Your definition of supervised and overseen are clearly different than most people's. The central bankers use every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling the money and its issuance. This is clearly a pointless debate, you work for a Wall Street hedge fund. X| I think that clearly shows your bias towards corrupt entities.
Actually I don't particularly like the industry I'm in... They just happen to treat me very well (Particularly in the monetary sense), and living in this city costs money.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Scenario two compounds the problem by causing inflation and fear of inflation
I never said the Fed system was perfect, but it beats a total financial collapse, which is what Scenario 1 would inevitably result in. And I would argue that these economic theories DO work, for the most part. Look at the economic powerhouse this country has become. We have such influence over the global market that a number of foreign currencies are directly linked to ours. It may not be perfect, but it beats the alternative. If you don't like the concept of a floating currency, then explain another solution to Scenario 1 in my previous post. Go ahead.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
-
Do you like being stupid? The central bank acts as a independent institution that controls the monetary system of the nation it represents. The central bank loans the money that it makes out of thin air (devaluing the currency, taking from people's hard earned savings) and loans that out with interest to other banks, corporations (bonds) and the government (treasuries). It acts as a independent governmental body that governs and manipulates the economy and funds itself by printing its money and also using that money to collect interest (a tax so to speak). As we can clearly see with the federal reserve, it is extremely secretive about its operations. You have to remember that every single dollar in circulation must be paid back to the federal reserve with interest. As you can imagine, it is impossible without taking another loan from the central bank to pay off the old loan. The value of the dollar has decreased by 95% since the inception of the federal reserve. Any money that you save gets devalued (stolen) right out of your pocket. Its modern slavery. Again, the value of the dollar has dropped by 95% since the fed's inception and it is completely going down the gutter right now. Its not intelligent whatsoever for anyone to endorse this giant ponzi scheme debt monster. Below is required reading. The first witness to be called is Abraham Lincoln. He warned, "I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and cause me to tremble for safety of my country; corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in High Places will follow, and the Money Power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the People, until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic destroyed." Congressman Wright Patman decared, "In the U.S. today, we have in effect two governments. We have the duly constituted government, then we have an independent, uncontrolled and uncoordinated government in the Federal Reserve, operating the money powers which are reserved to congress by the Constitution." Congressman Charles Lindbergh maintained, "Our financial system is a false one and a huge burden on the people . . . The Federal Reserve Act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President signs this bill, the invisible government of the monetary power will be legalized . . . The people must make a declaration of independence to relieve themselves from the Monetary Power . . . The worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by th
Given that you've copied and pasted the same text over and over, why not make it an article and just link to it ? Or why not go away until you can discuss the things you asked me to discuss with you. After that, perhaps you can try to discuss the Fed, and your ignorance of anything to do with it, a conversation in which I'd like you to answer questions, not paste paragraphs from websites.
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 really are making a fool out of yourself.[^] Alt[^] By the way that is you being smacked.
modified on Thursday, September 10, 2009 5:01 PM
Wow - this counts as a response in your retarded universe ? Here are the facts. 1 - you asked me to go through a huge post of yours and respond, point by point 2 - I pointed out that you need to prove your claims are true, not vice versa, but I did indeed respond to the first paragraph. It was on vacinnations, fluoride and GM. 3 - you responded, but you didn't really answer most of the things I said 4 - I responded with more facts 5 - you started to talk about the federal reserve 6 - I did respond, but said I wanted to not change the subject 7 - you said you wouldn't talk about those things any more. 8 - I reminded that it was you who brought them up and insisted I discuss them 9 - you whined like a little girl 10 - goto 8 In other words, I spent time researching a subject, at your request, shot you down in flames, and you ran scared. You've been owned.
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.
-
Actually I don't particularly like the industry I'm in... They just happen to treat me very well (Particularly in the monetary sense), and living in this city costs money.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Scenario two compounds the problem by causing inflation and fear of inflation
I never said the Fed system was perfect, but it beats a total financial collapse, which is what Scenario 1 would inevitably result in. And I would argue that these economic theories DO work, for the most part. Look at the economic powerhouse this country has become. We have such influence over the global market that a number of foreign currencies are directly linked to ours. It may not be perfect, but it beats the alternative. If you don't like the concept of a floating currency, then explain another solution to Scenario 1 in my previous post. Go ahead.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Look at the economic powerhouse this country has become.
:laugh: Look at the total collapse we have been led into.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Look at the economic powerhouse this country has become.
:laugh: Look at the total collapse we have been led into.
And look how, with action from the Fed, we're recovering from it.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
-
And look how, with action from the Fed, we're recovering from it.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
Ian Shlasko wrote:
And look how, with action from the Fed, we're recovering from it.
You are in fantasy land.
-
Wow - this counts as a response in your retarded universe ? Here are the facts. 1 - you asked me to go through a huge post of yours and respond, point by point 2 - I pointed out that you need to prove your claims are true, not vice versa, but I did indeed respond to the first paragraph. It was on vacinnations, fluoride and GM. 3 - you responded, but you didn't really answer most of the things I said 4 - I responded with more facts 5 - you started to talk about the federal reserve 6 - I did respond, but said I wanted to not change the subject 7 - you said you wouldn't talk about those things any more. 8 - I reminded that it was you who brought them up and insisted I discuss them 9 - you whined like a little girl 10 - goto 8 In other words, I spent time researching a subject, at your request, shot you down in flames, and you ran scared. You've been owned.
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.
Christian Graus wrote:
4 - I responded with more facts
Insignificant opinions aren't facts.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
And look how, with action from the Fed, we're recovering from it.
You are in fantasy land.
If you can't make a logical argument, just concede and be done with it.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
-
Christian Graus wrote:
4 - I responded with more facts
Insignificant opinions aren't facts.
I posted with solid facts. I researched them online. I actually took time to understand them, rather than just copying and pasting paragraphs. If what I said was so easy to demolish, why did you run away ?
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.
-
Well if you are going to whine and bitch about my small summaries that don't take long to read, here is proof for the first fact. FACT #1: The Fed is a private for profit corporation. Below are excerpts from a court case proving the Federal Reserve system's status. As you will see, the court ruled that the Federal Reserve Banks are "independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations", and there is not sufficient "federal government control over 'detailed physical performance' and 'day to day operation'" of the Federal Reserve Bank for it to be considered a federal agency: Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (1982) John L. Lewis, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant/Appellee. No. 80-5905 United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted March 2, 1982. Decided April 19, 1982. As Amended June 24, 1982. Plaintiff, who was injured by vehicle owned and operated by a federal reserve bank, brought action alleging jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The United States District Court for the Central District of California, David W. Williams, J., dismissed holding that federal reserve bank was not a federal agency within meaning of Act and that the court therefore lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Appeal was taken. The Court of Appeals, Poole, Circuit Judge, held that federal reserve banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the Act, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations. Affirmed. 1. United States There are no sharp criteria for determining whether an entity is a federal agency within meaning of the Federal Tort Claims Act, but critical factor is existence of federal government control over "detailed physical performance" and "day to day operation" of an entity. . . . 2. United States Federal reserve banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of a Federal Tort Claims Act, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations in light of fact that direct supervision and control of each bank is exercised by board of directors, federal reserve banks, though heavily regulated, are locally controlled by their member banks, banks are listed neither as "wholly owned" government corporations nor as "mixed ownership" corporations; federal reserve banks receive no appropriated funds from Congress and the banks are empowered to sue and be sued in their own names. . . . 3. United States Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, federal liabi
All that proves is that the Federal Reserve is a separate company which has ties to the US government. It isn't a governmental department, so I don't know that the governmental auditors would have jurisdiction. The overall methodology is somewhat similar to a trusted system process. The Federal Reserve's presence as a company might also explain why it keeps records secret. After all, most companies do, to stop other companies from stealing ideas or reducing their profits.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Those in the know about the Fed, realize that it does keep certain records secret. The soon-to-be-former Chairman of the House Banking Committee, Henry Gonzales, has spoken on record repeatedly about how the Fed at one point says it does not have certain requested records, and then it is found through investigation that it in fact does have those records, or at least used to.
So a large company lies. It's a shame, but not entirely unexpected.
-
You are an idiot.
It's not necessary to be so stupid, either, but people manage it. - Christian Graus, 2009 AD