It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Your bank, My bank, what the hell, even some MODS confused

page: 4
36
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2015 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: ISawItFirst

So if money does n't exist, how are people able to buy computers, drive around in cars and eat in restaurants. Explain, please.




posted on May, 17 2015 @ 10:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: ISawItFirst

So if money does n't exist, how are people able to buy computers, drive around in cars and eat in restaurants. Explain, please.


Because people make cars and computers and food. These are things people make. I'm not sure they have that on msnbc, but pieces of green cotton paper are surprisingly not the prime impetus for production of goods.

Take off the blinders. The fed doesn't build cars, program computers, or sear scallops. The only thing they manufacture is debt, and they sell it to you, by force. Well, maybe you choose it, but it is forced on the more observant among us, contrary to the ideals and principles that this country was founded upon.

We will never get off this rock if we keep selling each other debt.



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: ISawItFirst

You didn't answer the question. Are these goods simply being given away for nothing? And what does paper have to do with money? Some people use boulders as money, you know!



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 11:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: ISawItFirst

You didn't answer the question. Are these goods simply being given away for nothing? And what does paper have to do with money? Some people use boulders as money, you know!


You really just answered all of your own questions.

I'd like to know what paper has to do with money as well. Except that for some reason people are willing to take it as though it were money.

It's not. It's debt.

Just give us constitutional money and we will be happy. Those with out eyes to see will not notice a difference anyhow.

Explain to me how purchasing with debt instruments is good for anyone not at the top of the pyramid.
edit on 17-5-2015 by ISawItFirst because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: ISawItFirst

What do you mean by "constitutional money," and how does it differ from what you call "credit instruments." How would constitutional money function in the absence of a central bank?



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: ISawItFirst

What do you mean by "constitutional money," and how does it differ from what you call "credit instruments." How would constitutional money function in the absence of a central bank?


If you cant be bothered to read the Constitution I'm not sure I can be much help.

Money existed long before central banks.

How about money that is issued by the government, backed by a medium of exchange of intrinsic value.

On your end, money would function much the same way. It's not rocket surgery. It is just not lended into existence to make someone else rich.

You do know that there are hundred if not thousands of cummunities in the US that issue their own currency?

They don't have a central bank overseeing it and they do just fine.

You do understand that it is functionally impossible to pay the debt and it always will be. This will cause huge booms and busts, while the bankers get rich.

If we had money, there wouldn't be a national debt. We might owe other countries money, but right now, we owe ourselves, or rather the fed all that we have and then some. Because there is no money. Only debt.

It is called a Federal Reserve NOTE for a reason. A NOTE is a debt. NOTICE the debt is created by the federal Reserve and is a signed agreement by the treasurer and sec of treasury to pay back. Look at one sometime, it meets all the requirement of a debt instrument, but not all the requirements for money.

A 20 dollar bill is no different than a signed and executed mortgage contract. Except that the mortgage contract isn't entered into by force, against the law of the land, and in opposition of the people's natural rights.

Does that help?



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: ISawItFirst


If you cant be bothered to read the Constitution I'm not sure I can be much help.


Of course I've read the Constitution; that's why I wonder why you consider a central bank to be unconstitutional, whereas the communities that are issuing scrip are violating it! Seriously, get out your copy of the Constitution and read the relvant parts. You will be surprised, I assure you.
edit on 17-5-2015 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 08:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: ISawItFirst


If you cant be bothered to read the Constitution I'm not sure I can be much help.


Of course I've read the Constitution; that's why I wonder why you consider a central bank to be unconstitutional, whereas the communities that are issuing scrip are violating it! Seriously, get out your copy of the Constitution and read the relvant parts. You will be surprised, I assure you.


Perhaps you have read it. Let's see if you've thought about it. With what credit does the US currently borrow?



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 03:54 AM
link   
Just think; if the treasury official signed a document to create all the money the country needed to provide all the goods in services for one year there would never be a need for any of us to pay tax, no one would be homeless, no one would go without adequate health care, no one would go hungry.

When you sign on the dotted line of a loan application for xyz amount of money, you bring into existence the money you signed for. Cant believe it? do a search for a Ebook called Banks Lie, written by an Australian bloke who had is house stolen by the bank but who got back. He explains everything you need to know. Its excellent.

This situation is very realistically possible just by getting rid of the central bank.



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 05:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Azureblue


This situation is very realistically possible just by getting rid of the central bank


Exactly! Central banks act as clearing houses; they affirm whether or not lending institutions are capable of covering their loans and meeting their depositor's withdrawals. That's why I asked about checks. A check is a virtual transfer of funds from one bank to another. Arguably, this can be done in real time by a computer network, but for most of the United States' history the demand for funds had to be sent to a central bank to see if the bank the check was drawn on had sufficient credit; that way you didn't need to drag gold bars around from bank to bank. That, incidentally, explains the ten day waiting period some banks still have for deposits to clear.

Some of the more intelligent opponents of central banking see the authorization of inter-bank loans as the only legitimate function a central bank has; now that it can be done point-to-point by the banks themselves, the Fed can be abolished.



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 05:26 AM
link   
a reply to: ISawItFirst


Perhaps you have read it.


Of course I've read it. Have you?


Let's see if you've thought about it.


Of course I've thought about it. Have you even read it yet?


With what credit does the US currently borrow?


Irrelevant. Please explain why you think a central bank is unconstitutional. Please be sure to quote the appropriate passages directly from the constitution. Then you can explain why monetary transactions are "entered into by force, against the law of the land, and in opposition of the people's natural rights. " This statement is particularly puzzling as there are no laws making barter illegal; you are not forced to use money, provided you can find enough like minded trading partners.



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 06:54 AM
link   
a reply to: ISawItFirst


Explain to me how purchasing with debt instruments is good for anyone not at the top of the pyramid


Might as well answer this one while you're reading the Constitution: because if you apply the funds you receive by borrowing properly, you can make your way to the top of the pyramid. It's called "leveraging."



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 09:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: ISawItFirst


Explain to me how purchasing with debt instruments is good for anyone not at the top of the pyramid


Might as well answer this one while you're reading the Constitution: because if you apply the funds you receive by borrowing properly, you can make your way to the top of the pyramid. It's called "leveraging."


You are constantly conflating personal finances and government economies. So much you thought the other poster was agreeing with you. He was not.

At what point has the US govt borrowed enough to make it to the top of the pyramid.

edit on 18-5-2015 by ISawItFirst because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 09:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: ISawItFirst


Perhaps you have read it.


Of course I've read it. Have you?


Let's see if you've thought about it.


Of course I've thought about it. Have you even read it yet?


With what credit does the US currently borrow?


Irrelevant. Please explain why you think a central bank is unconstitutional. Please be sure to quote the appropriate passages directly from the constitution. Then you can explain why monetary transactions are "entered into by force, against the law of the land, and in opposition of the people's natural rights. " This statement is particularly puzzling as there are no laws making barter illegal; you are not forced to use money, provided you can find enough like minded trading partners.



Again. With what credit does the US borrow.

It is by force. I do not have a choice whether to be a party to a debt that has no basis for existing.

And to be clear, when we say central bank we are not talking about clearing house functions, we are talking about the FED. By the way, clearing checks is something that happened before central banks. Also, banks now don't even have to honor their own paper. They can charge a fee to cash their own checks.

I think the creation of generational debt, and the manipulations of the money (debt) supply are significantly larger functions than clearing checks.
Ever seen seinfeld? That wizard, it does other things!! It's not just a tip calculator.
edit on 18-5-2015 by ISawItFirst because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 09:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: ISawItFirst


Perhaps you have read it.


Of course I've read it. Have you?


Let's see if you've thought about it.


Of course I've thought about it. Have you even read it yet?


With what credit does the US currently borrow?


Irrelevant. Please explain why you think a central bank is unconstitutional. Please be sure to quote the appropriate passages directly from the constitution. Then you can explain why monetary transactions are "entered into by force, against the law of the land, and in opposition of the people's natural rights. " This statement is particularly puzzling as there are no laws making barter illegal; you are not forced to use money, provided you can find enough like minded trading partners.


More conflation. You just don't get it.

I, and you, are surety to this debt. We have no choice. We are forced to use FRNs whether we ever see one or not.

For every dollar in the system a dollar and a dime is owed.

The constitution says the US may borrow on the credit of the US. Only we have no credit now. We are borrowing on debt. We cannot borrow on credit, because we gave the power of credit to a private Rothschild institution. We issue debt, they ussue debt notes, and we all pretend it is money. In fact, it is a mechanism for robbing an entire country of its wealth and sovereignty.

If you can't see that, you clearly have fingers in that pie.

You are certainly not in the oblivious or unintelligent camp, so you must think you're an elitist and the on the bankers team.

Do you not understand that the powers delegated by the Consituation are non transferrable?

If they were the document is pointless. I get the feeling you think the document is pointless anyways though...



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: ISawItFirst

Correct; the Constitution allows the United States to borrow. It does not specify from whom, nor what the terms are. Basically, everything you have said is your personal opinion and is not derived either from the Constitution nor from accepted.business law. You sound like someone who thinks the Sovereign Citizen movement is on to something. It's not.



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 10:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: ISawItFirst

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: ISawItFirst


Explain to me how purchasing with debt instruments is good for anyone not at the top of the pyramid


Might as well answer this one while you're reading the Constitution: because if you apply the funds you receive by borrowing properly, you can make your way to the top of the pyramid. It's called "leveraging."


You are constantly conflating personal finances and government economies. So much you thought the other poster was agreeing with you. He was not.

At what point has the US govt borrowed enough to make it to the top of the pyramid.


I know that poster was not agreeing with me, I was pointing out that the absurd situation he was describing was one of the reasons why central banks are necessary. It is you who seems to be conflating personal finance and economics. In case you haven't noticed, the United States has been the most powerful country -not just militarily, but economically, optically and culturally- on Earth for the past half century. Sure sounds like it's reached the top of the pyramid to me.

Now: do you have a reliable source that backs the OP' s assertion that the Fed is owned by the Rotschilds, or a primary source for the quotations attributed to the 19th Century Baron?



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 11:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: ISawItFirst

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: ISawItFirst


Explain to me how purchasing with debt instruments is good for anyone not at the top of the pyramid


Might as well answer this one while you're reading the Constitution: because if you apply the funds you receive by borrowing properly, you can make your way to the top of the pyramid. It's called "leveraging."


You are constantly conflating personal finances and government economies. So much you thought the other poster was agreeing with you. He was not.

At what point has the US govt borrowed enough to make it to the top of the pyramid.


I know that poster was not agreeing with me, I was pointing out that the absurd situation he was describing was one of the reasons why central banks are necessary. It is you who seems to be conflating personal finance and economics. In case you haven't noticed, the United States has been the most powerful country -not just militarily, but economically, optically and culturally- on Earth for the past half century. Sure sounds like it's reached the top of the pyramid to me.

Now: do you have a reliable source that backs the OP' s assertion that the Fed is owned by the Rotschilds, or a primary source for the quotations attributed to the 19th Century Baron?


Hahaha. You fall flat once a again. Conflation conflation. Moving goalposts.

The US is not at the tip of the pyramid if everything they have is borrowed. They OWE someone.

The constitution says they can borrow on Their Credit. They have no credit. Credit is now issued by the FED. This is the problem.


The only problem the fed solves is economic freedom. Many of us don't find that a problem.

You have yet to let us know which of your fingers are in the fiscal slavery pie.

The fed isn't even the top if the pyramid. THEY OWE SOMEONE TOO. World banc, IMF, take your pick.

It is economic slavery that you are advocating. So you can cash a check wherever you like. Foolish to say the least.



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: ISawItFirst

I have done my best to explain how the world works to you. Clearly, you are one of those who think capitalizing a letter completely changes the meaning of a word. I guess the rest of the world can sleep tight knowing that all those nuclear submarines armed with ICBMs Don't "really" belong to the United States.



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: ISawItFirst

I have done my best to explain how the world works to you. Clearly, you are one of those who think capitalizing a letter completely changes the meaning of a word. I guess the rest of the world can sleep tight knowing that all those nuclear submarines armed with ICBMs Don't "really" belong to the United States.


More of your tripe. You don't understand the words so you go off on tangents.

Still haven't let us know your affiliations with these institutions.

Are you obscuring for personal gain, or just uneducated and uninformed. I lean towards the former.



new topics




 
36
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join