Enjoy an Ads-Free Jets Insider - Become a Jets Insider VIP!
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 28 of 28

Thread: Vilma's open challenge to anyone who can dispute these truths about the Fed

  1. #21
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    astoria
    Posts
    5,148
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Vilma;2890799]Hey you guys know that I think the Federal Reserve System is the worst thing to ever happen to this country. So please, if you disagree, address these points logically and intelligently, with no personal attacks.

    [I]It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." - Henry Ford[/I]



    What is the Fed? The real answer to this question is that the Federal Reserve is like a big Mafia loan shark. It owns our nation in the same way a loan shark owns his "clients!" There is absolutely no difference between the two.

    No matter what the situation, whenever there is news related to the Federal Reserve a big, loud, coordinated, conspiratorial lie of omission is committed by every single news outlet in our nation. What is this lie? It is keeping up the false impression that the Federal Reserve is part of our government! The Fed is a private, for profit bank, that controls our government and economy. They control the money supply, inflation, depression, recessions, etc. They are not accountable to Congress, the executive branch or anyone in government.

    The revolutionary war was started primarily to get away from a similar situation in England where the Bank of England held the same control over their nation. Revolutionaries realized this and they put an end to it. Unfortunately some traitors in the Senate reversed our true liberation and now we have a private bank controlling our personal financial status.
    [B][I]
    Let me ask you a simple question: what country in its right mind would create a system that would force it to lend itself money and have to repay the money WITH INTEREST? What country would charge itself interest? What nation would put itself out of business by making it bankrupt because of interest? The answer is none! America is not charging itself interest on its debt, the privately owned central bankers are doing this and they are hiding in plain sight! Congress (with the exception of Ron Paul), every US president and every single member of the corporate media are either part of the conspiracy or just plain stupid![/I][/B]

    Two presidents tried to stop this outrage, and they were both assassinated. Lincoln was set to bypass the central banks in order to finance the Civil War. The banks were going to charge him 24-36% interest on the loans. So Lincoln had Congress pass a law authorizing the printing of full legal tender. These treasury notes would be used to finance the war. Lincoln wrote: "... (we) gave the people of this Republic the greatest blessing they have ever had - their own paper money to pay their own debts..." Now go and research the person who supposedly killed Lincoln and how he relates to bankers.

    After Lincoln was assassinated Congress revoked the Greenback Law and enacted the National Banking Act. The national banks were to be privately owned and the national bank notes they issued were to be interest-bearing. The Act also provided that the Greenbacks should be retired from circulation as soon as they came back to the Treasury in payment of taxes.

    John F. Kennedy was the next brave man to take on the Federal Reserve. On June 4, 1963, President Kennedy signed a Presidential Executive Order 11110. This order virtually stripped the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the United States Government at interest. Kennedy declared the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank would soon be out of business. This order gave the Treasury Department the authority to issue silver certificates against any silver in the treasury. This executive order still stands today. No president since has had the courage to invoke it for it would mean their demise. The US government is a front for the real controllers; the central bankers.

    Debt keeps the central banks in control of the world. Nations that eliminate their debt end up on the hit list. When you see nations "liberated" by the US or its allies what normally follows is a central bank extending loans to these liberated nations. The World Bank always comes to the rescue. What a joke this is like having a loan shark come to the rescue of someone who needs food money for his kids!

    War is the single biggest money making business for the central bankers. Nations go into tremendous debt to finance war. Interestingly enough, but in no way surprising to those of us who know better, the architects of both Vietnam and the Iraq invasion both went on to become the head of the World Bank; Robert McNamara and Paul Wolfowitz. It is the central banks that push the world towards military conflict.

    Look at your money; it say "Federal Reserve Note!" It is not an American government currency backed by an asset. It is fiat currency backed by nothing. The Federal Reserve lends these notes to the government, with interest! What a scam! How do we permit this? Oh, I know, we permit this because most people don't know about it...thanks to the criminals in the media. For if the people knew, perhaps Henry Ford's words would ring true and we would indeed take to the streets to stop this crime!

    The Federal Reserve is a private bank that owns the sole right to dictate monetary policy for our nation. As a matter of fact shortly after George W. Bush was placed in office by very powerful people, not by the electorate, the Federal Reserve announced that they would no longer report how much money was being printed. Imagine that! Well you don't have to imagine that because it happened, and the media did not tell you about it, and our Congress sat quiet.

    This is the biggest scam and conspiracy on our planet and we must make this part of our daily discussion. Ask questions, and DEMAND answers!

    Think about it!

    Some people have commented that the president of the United States appoints the head of the Federal Reserve and that is proof that the Fed is indeed part of the government. Well people, the president does present his selection to Congress for approval...but that selection comes from a list of candidates given to him by the Federal Reserve!!! It's a show, people!

    Kids...this is not a joke. It is also not a secret. It is public record...not a theory. The Fed is a private for profit bank that does not answer to Congress or the President and it is unconstitutional. It is another responsibility given to Congress by our Constitution that has been ignored or illegally assigned elsewhere by Congress; just as the power to declare war has been signed over to George W. Bush. Look it up...take a minute...this is a huge issue and one that should not be dismissed so quickly because you just became aware of it by reading a blog. Go do some homework. I did...[/QUOTE]who's backing the bailouts? is the Fed selling these notes,cause the interest rates are still very low.

  2. #22
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    21,950
    Post Thanks / Like
    PK <---- waiting for BB's 2 cents on this

  3. #23
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Dallas Via Brooklyn NY
    Posts
    3,159
    Post Thanks / Like
    Great post Vilma ;) right on the money

    Now go change ya name to Harris or something :D

    That is all !

  4. #24
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    15,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;2891140]PK <---- waiting for BB's 2 cents on this[/QUOTE]

    Friggin homework :mad:

  5. #25
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,292
    Post Thanks / Like
    I posted this in your other thread and you subsequently ignored it but your issues with the federal reserve come down to certain assumptions about the creation of value, what time frame you use to evaluate the effectiveness of policy and some misreadings of historical contingency/historical events. Since I'm a grad student and have both the time and inclination to argue over the internet I'll actually respond.

    1) Value - In both your Ron Paul post and here you make certain assumptions about the creation of value. Linking value to gold (or indexing value to anything material at all) assumes that value is subject to limits, namely the limits of whatever it is indexed to. This assumption is reflected in basic ideas about the market (the esteem given to competition, the very idea of currency inflation, the idea that the infinite variety of economic exchanges can be represented mathematically). However, this assumption does not hold true in all, most, or even many historical cases. Here are counterexamples
    a) King Stephen - Angevin Monarch who was replaced by Henry II. Funded several civil wars through his brother Henry of Blois taking control of the English mint and dumping its entire reserve into the English countryside. Instead of inflation he generated the more or less infinite wealth required to hire thousand of mercenaries for decades at a time.
    b) United States cc 1890 - The move towards non gold standards was ostensibly going to cause the US economy (although the idea of the US economy as a structure only dates to the 1930's and 40's) to shatter and the currency to be devalued. The assumption was that currency would no longer be accepted when it couldnt necessarily be redeemed for gold. The reality was that, since value is not derived from its index, not everybody tried to turn cash into gold and the financial system didnt collapse. Indeed, any circumstances that sent tens of millions of people to the bank to get gold probably means we have bigger problems to worry about.
    c) Since the Bretton Woods agreement established national currencies in the 1970's certain views of value have been acknowledged as implicitly true. First, following Ricardo or Marx, value is generated through exchange, not the medium of exchange. This is why, for example, something like 98% of all wealth is in derivative and not currency form. This system, like a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow, continues to function so long as people continue to buy into the validity of the system and keep their funds in it. This validity is in turn based on the power of national governments to ensure the continued global relevance of its markets. Think of how the MIC stimulated US growth after WWII, or how China or England manages to stabilize the relative value of the pound and xuan. You can argue with the theory or morality behind this, but you cannot deny that Bretton woods took place.

    2) Time Lag - Your two main arguments seem to be 1) the fed is a 'mafia loan shark' that is bankrupting the country and 2) there is a huge widespread conspiracy to mask this fact. I'll ignore 2) until later. 1) is based on a very particular reading of the biography of a loan. It is true that we are in theory paying interest on national loans, but this elides two realities. 1) These loans with interest are being used for growth and paid back over time in such a way that the interest is less than the surplus value being created through them. In its unfolding, money lent by the bank is spent by potentially hundreds of parties, and the loans, or at least treasury bonds, are rarely redeemed. 2) Transactions are embedded in part of a larger system as discussed above, and as long as you acknowledge the power of our government then the system will continue to function. In essence, your argument views something synchronically that actually unfolds diachronically.

    3) Historical misreadings - First, while Ford was undoubtedly a successful, entreprenuer he also was a virulent anti semite, might have been involved in the assassinations of several labor organizers and was definitely involved in an attempted assassination of Samuel Gompers. Basically, dont assume that anything Ford valued was automatically worth valuing. Second, to beleive in the sort of far flung conspiracies your insinuating is, and this is not intended as an insult, extremely ignorant. The media industry, academia, government, and the financial industry total about 40 million people in the United States alone. It would take one whistle blower, or failing that, one incompetent person, to unmask the entire thing. Our government is full of incompetent people, and academia and the financial industry are loaded with intelligent ones. Your blurb about the presidents commits a basic attribution error. On September 10th 2001 Ted Kennedy gave a blistering address before congress about the need for financial regulation. The next day was September 11th. Connection?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?! Saying that the fed led to the assassination of Lincoln instead of, say, outrage about the Civil War, is no more valid than my example. Finally, and this is Warfish's main argument, the FR was created for a specific reason. Prior to the FR the US used literally hundreds of currencies, many of which were only valid only in certain areas and many of which were calculated out of a base 10 number system. Currency conversion required a dizzying logbook of permutations (I've seen copies in Williamsburg, think 10 volumes of 1000 pages each) and often wasnt possible at all. The unification of American currency, brought about by the Fed, is what first allowed for unchecked growth through exchange. As a corollary of this and the need to establish a uniform weight for coins the United States first adopted a single standard of weights and measures. These weights and measures themselves spurred interstate commerce enough to necessitate the building of rail networks. You owe a lot to the federal reserve, and Ron Paul is in the unique position where nobody (and its a big big nobody) who disagrees with him is going to dignify his polemic with a response, so those who do agree with him can tout him as a prophet.

    PS: The internets is really big and allows for you to choose what information you process. It is really really condescending to call adults 'kids' and to entreat them to 'do your homework' when your regurgitating the ideology of a demagogue.

  6. #26
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    848
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Jman21;2891118][B]See this is better than going on and on about conspiracy theories and such[/B]. The gov has set up and does oversee the FRB. The FRB is not a private bank. So what you are asking is for more oversight. I'm ok with that.[/QUOTE]

    This isn't a conspiracy theory... these are the facts, the Federal Reserve has been redistributing wealth to the rich since 1913. There is no need for the Fed, we lasted until 1913 on a gold standard and experienced great growth and prosperity. The only ones who hate the gold standard are bankers because it forces them to only lend what they have. The worry of bank panics is far less of problem than the manipulation of the market by the Fed. There are solutions to the banks pains though, as someone pointed out more transparency in the system and maybe a new sort of private banking insurance to prevent runs on the bank could be implemented. With a precious metals standard all you are doing is letting the free market work in the absence of government. Unlike fiat currencies which always self destruct (as the dollars is doing now) precious metals are sound currency.

  7. #27
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    15,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    There are sound arguments for the Fed: ability to finance unpopular wars and have governments centrally plan the economy (that's why it's called a central bank and we opponents are free bankers).

    I happen not to share those subjective goals.

    I prefer respecting the market's natural rate of interest to avoid artificial credit boom and bust cycles and the corrupting political allocation of resources that goes with it.

  8. #28
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    848
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=hamburglar;2891855]I posted this in your other thread and you subsequently ignored it but your issues with the federal reserve come down to certain assumptions about the creation of value, what time frame you use to evaluate the effectiveness of policy and some misreadings of historical contingency/historical events. Since I'm a grad student and have both the time and inclination to argue over the internet I'll actually respond.

    1) Value - In both your Ron Paul post and here you make certain assumptions about the creation of value. [B]1. Linking value to gold (or indexing value to anything material at all) assumes that value is subject to limits, namely the limits of whatever it is indexed to.[/B] This assumption is reflected in basic ideas about the market (the esteem given to competition, the very idea of currency inflation, the idea that the infinite variety of economic exchanges can be represented mathematically). However, this assumption does not hold true in all, most, or even many historical cases. Here are counterexamples
    a) King Stephen - Angevin Monarch who was replaced by Henry II. Funded several civil wars through his brother Henry of Blois taking control of the English mint and dumping its entire reserve into the English countryside. Instead of inflation he generated the more or less infinite wealth required to hire thousand of mercenaries for decades at a time.
    b) United States cc 1890 - The move towards non gold standards was ostensibly going to cause the US economy (although the idea of the US economy as a structure only dates to the 1930's and 40's) to shatter and the currency to be devalued. The assumption was that currency would no longer be accepted when it couldnt necessarily be redeemed for gold. The reality was that, since value is not derived from its index, not everybody tried to turn cash into gold and the financial system didnt collapse. Indeed, any circumstances that sent tens of millions of people to the bank to get gold probably means we have bigger problems to worry about.
    c) Since the Bretton Woods agreement established national currencies in the 1970's certain views of value have been acknowledged as implicitly true. First, following Ricardo or Marx, value is generated through exchange, not the medium of exchange. This is why, for example, something like 98% of all wealth is in derivative and not currency form. This system, like a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow, continues to function so long as people continue to buy into the validity of the system and keep their funds in it. This validity is in turn based on the power of national governments to ensure the continued global relevance of its markets. Think of how the MIC stimulated US growth after WWII, or how China or England manages to stabilize the relative value of the pound and xuan. You can argue with the theory or morality behind this, but you cannot deny that Bretton woods took place.

    2) Time Lag - Your two main arguments seem to be 1) the fed is a 'mafia loan shark' that is bankrupting the country and 2) there is a huge widespread conspiracy to mask this fact. I'll ignore 2) until later. 1) is based on a very particular reading of the biography of a loan. It is true that we are in theory paying interest on national loans, but this elides two realities. 1) [B]2. These loans with interest are being used for growth and paid back over time in such a way that the interest is less than the surplus value being created through them.[/B] In its unfolding, money lent by the bank is spent by potentially hundreds of parties, and the loans, or at least treasury bonds, are rarely redeemed. 2) Transactions are embedded in part of a larger system as discussed above, and as long as you acknowledge the power of our government then the system will continue to function. In essence, your argument views something synchronically that actually unfolds diachronically.

    3) Historical misreadings - First, while Ford was undoubtedly a successful, entreprenuer he also was a virulent anti semite, might have been involved in the assassinations of several labor organizers and was definitely involved in an attempted assassination of Samuel Gompers. Basically, dont assume that anything Ford valued was automatically worth valuing. Second, to beleive in the sort of far flung conspiracies your insinuating is, and this is not intended as an insult, extremely ignorant. The media industry, academia, government, and the financial industry total about 40 million people in the United States alone. It would take one whistle blower, or failing that, one incompetent person, to unmask the entire thing. Our government is full of incompetent people, and academia and the financial industry are loaded with intelligent ones. Your blurb about the presidents commits a basic attribution error. On September 10th 2001 Ted Kennedy gave a blistering address before congress about the need for financial regulation. The next day was September 11th. Connection?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?! Saying that the fed led to the assassination of Lincoln instead of, say, outrage about the Civil War, is no more valid than my example. Finally, and this is Warfish's main argument, the FR was created for a specific reason. Prior to the FR the US used literally hundreds of currencies, many of which were only valid only in certain areas and many of which were calculated out of a base 10 number system. Currency conversion required a dizzying logbook of permutations (I've seen copies in Williamsburg, think 10 volumes of 1000 pages each) and often wasnt possible at all. [B]3. The unification of American currency, brought about by the Fed, is what first allowed for unchecked growth through exchange.[/B] As a corollary of this and the need to establish a uniform weight for coins the United States first adopted a single standard of weights and measures. These weights and measures themselves spurred interstate commerce enough to necessitate the building of rail networks. You owe a lot to the federal reserve, and Ron Paul is in the unique position where nobody (and its a big big nobody) who disagrees with him is going to dignify his polemic with a response, so those who do agree with him can tout him as a prophet.

    PS: The internets is really big and allows for you to choose what information you process. It is really really condescending to call adults 'kids' and to entreat them to 'do your homework' when your regurgitating the ideology of a demagogue.[/QUOTE]

    1. Gold gets its value from its scarcity.... its impossible for the government to print more gold when they need it and therefore government is restricted and limited aka they can't fund numerous Civil Wars (as you pointed out). Paper on the other hand gives the government a blank checkbook upon which they can grow indefinitely.

    2. Artificial monetary growth is phony, you cannot grow an economy by printing more money, you only cause malinvestment by giving funds to people and corporations who do not deserve them and this must eventually be corrected through a recession aka the boom and bust cycle.

    3. This is a completely false statement... the Fed didn't provide for anything except the guarantee of continuous inflation through artificial monetary growth... the U.S. dollar was issued by congress from 1787 to 1913 without the Fed and it was backed by gold and silver.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us