Biggest Crooks In The World

originally posted by: SkeptiSchism
I've studied the fed for over 10 years and in general I've come to this conclusion: the fed is a hybrid creature between banks and governments. It has the authority of government to craft regulations and regulate member banks, but it enjoys private sector privileges of complete secrecy and opacity.

It's completely unconstitutional and we'd be better off having treasury print state currency interest (debt) free.

I don't disagree that the structure of the fed is flawed and that it should be under direct treasury control.

Doesn't however make it unconstitutional.

a reply to: TruthxIsxInxThexMist

I think one major problem is that our collective concept of personal property has very few if any limitations.

One person can theoretically own the whole world and everyone else needs to just deal with it.

That's a bit too extreme I think.

a reply to: ScepticScot

I said it explains the history of the fed, and I disagree that it is inaccurate. It is actually very accurate. Can you tell me how the primary dealers operate?

a reply to: ScepticScot

Why has the fed not been audited then?

originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: ScepticScot

Why has the fed not been audited then?

It has been many times.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SkeptiSchism
I've studied the fed for over 10 years and in general I've come to this conclusion: the fed is a hybrid creature between banks and governments. It has the authority of government to craft regulations and regulate member banks, but it enjoys private sector privileges of complete secrecy and opacity.

It's completely unconstitutional and we'd be better off having treasury print state currency interest (debt) free.

I don't disagree that the structure of the fed is flawed and that it should be under direct treasury control.

Doesn't however make it unconstitutional.

Article 1 Section 8 of the US constitution states that congress has the authority (duty) to regulate the supply of money. Some people argue literally that our money should be only gold and silver, while others argue for state currency. Personally, I think a better money is gold and silver because gold and silver have been money for thousands of years, history.

This is the primary formula in economics to describe credit (our money is now credit)

FV = PV (1+i)^t

i is interest and t is time, PV is present value and FV is future value. This formula was derived when gold was money. Notice the exponent of time, that tells you that time is more influential in that formula than the value of money because exponents are more powerful that linear equations.

Since banks are allowed to issue non-secured credit which is fungible with savings in the economy, the 'PV' value in that equation is completely whacked because currencies can change value in nano-seconds traded on the forex markets. Therefore the future value calculated is whacked.

Therefore governments should either issue non-interest bearing currency getting rid of that formula or we should return to sound money of precious metals where the supply is limited thus forcing thrift, savings and virtue.

It's about a virtuous money versus an evil money, currently we are forced to use evil money.

originally posted by: SkeptiSchism
a reply to: ScepticScot

I said it explains the history of the fed, and I disagree that it is inaccurate. It is actually very accurate. Can you tell me how the primary dealers operate?

I know the basics but not all the operational mechanics. More familiar with GEMMs over here.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: TruthxIsxInxThexMist

First of all Money/Cash is something which can be printed forever or in todays Society something which can be digitally printed forever and it should be a prison sentence if you are lending people this cash which comes out of thin air and then asking for said people to repay that loan with interest.

I know, private banks (called "The Fed") print money at pennies per note then sell it to you at face value.

If you did that you would be charged with counterfeiting, a felony punishable with a lengthy prison sentence.

Thats why the constitution states that "Only Congress shall coin money and determine the value thereof".

The reason they penned that was because they knew that private banks would try and wrest control of the countries finances (and therefore the autonomy) away from the People's elected Representatives.

Constitution, Representatives, whats that?

The Federal Reserve gets its powers from an act of Congress. Nothing unconstitutional about that.

Yes, when most on Congress had left for the Christmas break...

originally posted by: pikestaff

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: TruthxIsxInxThexMist

First of all Money/Cash is something which can be printed forever or in todays Society something which can be digitally printed forever and it should be a prison sentence if you are lending people this cash which comes out of thin air and then asking for said people to repay that loan with interest.

I know, private banks (called "The Fed") print money at pennies per note then sell it to you at face value.

If you did that you would be charged with counterfeiting, a felony punishable with a lengthy prison sentence.

Thats why the constitution states that "Only Congress shall coin money and determine the value thereof".

The reason they penned that was because they knew that private banks would try and wrest control of the countries finances (and therefore the autonomy) away from the People's elected Representatives.

Constitution, Representatives, whats that?

The Federal Reserve gets its powers from an act of Congress. Nothing unconstitutional about that.

Yes, when most on Congress had left for the Christmas break...

Urban myth I'm afraid. Look up the vote numbers.

originally posted by: SkeptiSchism

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SkeptiSchism
I've studied the fed for over 10 years and in general I've come to this conclusion: the fed is a hybrid creature between banks and governments. It has the authority of government to craft regulations and regulate member banks, but it enjoys private sector privileges of complete secrecy and opacity.

It's completely unconstitutional and we'd be better off having treasury print state currency interest (debt) free.

I don't disagree that the structure of the fed is flawed and that it should be under direct treasury control.

Doesn't however make it unconstitutional.

Article 1 Section 8 of the US constitution states that congress has the authority (duty) to regulate the supply of money. Some people argue literally that our money should be only gold and silver, while others argue for state currency. Personally, I think a better money is gold and silver because gold and silver have been money for thousands of years, history.

This is the primary formula in economics to describe credit (our money is now credit)

FV = PV (1+i)^t

i is interest and t is time, PV is present value and FV is future value. This formula was derived when gold was money. Notice the exponent of time, that tells you that time is more influential in that formula than the value of money because exponents are more powerful that linear equations.

Since banks are allowed to issue non-secured credit which is fungible with savings in the economy, the 'PV' value in that equation is completely whacked because currencies can change value in nano-seconds traded on the forex markets. Therefore the future value calculated is whacked.

Therefore governments should either issue non-interest bearing currency getting rid of that formula or we should return to sound money of precious metals where the supply is limited thus forcing thrift, savings and virtue.

It's about a virtuous money versus an evil money, currently we are forced to use evil money.

That formula has nothing to do with how money is issued by central banks. It's a description of how people value money now v later. Changing the mechanism of issuing base money does not get rid of the formula.

Commodity backed money is no more or less virtuous then fiat money. It's just money.

a reply to: ScepticScot


Passed the House on September 18, 1913 (287–85, 5 Present)
Passed the Senate on December 18, 1913 (54–34)

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: ScepticScot


Passed the House on September 18, 1913 (287–85, 5 Present)
Passed the Senate on December 18, 1913 (54–34)

Yeah but they were all on Christmas holiday...

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Yeah but they were all on Christmas holiday...

Jekyll Island had special seasonal rates so I don't blame them.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Yeah but they were all on Christmas holiday...

Jekyll Island had special seasonal rates so I don't blame them.

It's the spa choice of evil Rothschild bankers/ globalists/ lizard people.

originally posted by: SkeptiSchism

This is the primary formula in economics to describe credit (our money is now credit)

FV = PV (1+i)^t

i is interest and t is time, PV is present value and FV is future value. This formula was derived when gold was money. Notice the exponent of time, that tells you that time is more influential in that formula than the value of money because exponents are more powerful that linear equations.

That formula is not correct.

Believe me, I've been a money manager in my early career, and I've seen that formula mentioned before.

A number of corrections are missing from it, such as defaults and inflation, etc..

But, just not to get too complicated here, we can improve your formula by adjusting for annual inflation rate "r"

by writing,

FV = PV x [(1 + i)^t ]/[(1 + r)^t]

Then it gets a little more accurate.

Looks like my thread has been derailed.

i was hoping to get rthe answers to my questions.

Also this is about the Global System, not just the US system

a reply to: SkeptiSchism

[The fed doesn't really earn direct profits I mean they hold almost $4 trillion in worthless assets, it's more or less a tool to favor big banks.

US citizens taxes can never pay off the interest on the Eternal Debt.

Debt slavery.

Just like the Banks intended.

a reply to: TruthxIsxInxThexMist

Well to answer your question if a government gives it's central bank authority to create money then that by definition isn't illegal. You might not like the mechanics of how it does it, but that doesn't make it illegal.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: TruthxIsxInxThexMist

Well to answer your question if a government gives it's central bank authority to create money then that by definition isn't illegal. You might not like the mechanics of how it does it, but that doesn't make it illegal.

Actually, the people decide what is legal and illegal, not the government.

The people just go along with the government, until they get fed up with all the illegal actions and then they revolt, and set up a new government.

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: TruthxIsxInxThexMist

Well to answer your question if a government gives it's central bank authority to create money then that by definition isn't illegal. You might not like the mechanics of how it does it, but that doesn't make it illegal.

Actually, the people decide what is legal and illegal, not the government.

The people just go along with the government, until they get fed up with all the illegal actions and then they revolt, and set up a new government.

Really, what laws did you personally decide on?