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.

 

Why do YOU hate the fed?

page: 6
6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Kaytagg
 


Continuing...

The importance of the Federal Reserve causing the Great Depression, which severely affected the world, and directly led to the election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, which in turn led to the Securities Act of 1933, followed by the Security Ecxchange Act of 1934, which in turn created the Security Exchange Commission, (SEC), which then led to the Glass-Stengall Act that created the National Recovery Administration, (until it was finally struck down as unconstitutional by The Supreme Court), along with setting minimum prices and wages, Agricultural Adjustment Act, and a whole bevy of other Alphabet Agencies, that constitute The New Deal policies that drove an unprecedented level of expansion by the federal government.

In other words, because the Federal Reserve caused the Great Depression, the U.S. federal government used this severe economic crisis as an excuse to expand its powers, laying the foundation for the "superpower" nation the United States has become, creating a government that strays egregiously from the original intent of those who Framed the Constitution.

Then there is the issue of fiat money, an inflationary device abhorrent to stable economies, a system where there is no intrinsic value and backed solely by faith alone. Fiat money can be made of useless metals to issue coin, or incontravertible paper money. Incontrovertible money, or fiat money is a forced loan placed upon the community that uses them, but whatever fiscal advantages that are promised with fiat money, the destruction it causes can be quite serious.

Overuse is the experience of history in regards to fiat money schemes issued since time immemorial, which leads to disturbances in the prices of commodities and business in general. It is the indefinite nature of future payment, coupled with no interest on the notes, that leads to a depreciation. No one in their right mind would sacrifice present values for uncertain values in an unspecified future, and would expect some compensation in exchange. This compensation in the form of fiat money comes with a discount based upon the willingness to take the money in exchange, but the wide variance of discounts makes fiat money not at all the best form of currency. One of the surest ways to undermine a nations currency is to issue fiat money and then overproduce irredeemable coins and paper money.

The high inflation that follows, coupled with the Federal Reserves ability to control interest rates, and when those interest rates are suppressed and kept artificially low, lower than the rate of inflation, then while the currency is going through its depreciation, there is no incentive for people to save their money as the interest rates derived from that savings will be lower than the rate of inflation and people will loose money rather than earn. Thus, as inflation climbs, people are less inclined to save money, and further are encouraged to spend it, to keep the faith of the economy strong.

Finally, there is the matter of outrageous and extremely ill advised programs such as the "too big to fail" fiasco that used tax dollars to bail out private banks, many of which are members on one or more of the Regional Federal Reserve Banks that elect their Directors, who in turn appoint the presidents, who then partake in the Federal Open Market Committee that dictate economic policies such as "too big to fail" that as an unofficial policy, ignored the several anti-trust laws enacted to prevent any business from getting to big to fail to begin with.

So, in conclusion, you ask why I oppose the Federal Reserve, and I tell you that it is because it is a cartel of private bankers who use a "quasi-public" organization to influence monetary policies, and do so on a moments notice, and have been the cause of much destruction in the past and the arrogance and hostility this organization shows the American people today, is the kind of hostility that should be dealt with harshly and decisively before they do even more damage down the road.




posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 11:27 AM
link   
By "the Feds" do you mean the Republicans? Because to them this money thing is a religion. Poor Democrats are just trying to put a little food on the table and a roof over their heads.
Think about it...do you know any poor Republicans?




posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Kaytagg
 

Serve to explain how policy is formulated every day, down to the minute, and how how their intervention affects immediate changes in the markets. The Federal Reserve is neither private nor public it is as Cooper said it was a curious hybrid of both, where private banks purchase membership stock in order to elect regional Directors to Regional Reserve Banks, who in turn select presidents who serve on the Federal Open Market Committee that controls the economy of the United States for America, through immediate interventions upon the whims of its directors and presidents all working for private bank members, which for all intents and purposes, is a cartel.

A cartel comprised of private banks who manipulate money and interest rates, affecting the U.S. economy with the snap of a finger. This is the reality of the Federal Reserve, and money supply system that was entrusted to Congress, now "delegated" to a curious hybrid of a system where a privately owned quasi-public organization works "within" the government to affect economic policy. It is a system antithetical to free market advocates, and is an undeniably artificial intrusion into the market. This private/quasi-public nature of the Federal Reserve, coupled with its control on the markets, is just one reason so many people oppose the existenceof this sort of centralized banking system.

However, you asked for citations and for elaboration on fiat money and how this "enslaves" the people, so I must end this post here, and continue with yet another.

Continuing...


Yes, the Fed is there to cartelize the banks, in order to control the monetary supply and bring uniformity to the banking system.

The stock owned by the member banks isn't like "stock" you own in other institutions -- you can't trade or sell it, and part of that money will go towards lending to other banks when they approach the fed for money.

The fed can effect the economy at the snap of a finger -- which is how we were prevented from experiencing a complete economic collapse after wallstreet tanked the entire economy. Not sure why nobody would hate the fed for saving the economy.. that seems sort of ass-backwards. If anything, you should hate the institutions which crashed the economy, which the fed had nothing to do with.
EDIT: What am I saying, the Fed didn't actually save the economy, TARP did, which congress passed, not the fed. Although the fed was there to provide emergency liquidity to the banks. They also helped snuff out deflation in the currency, during 08/09.


None of this comes even close to being the huge conspiracy I hear people on ats make it out to be.

The fed is just a tool used to bring stability to the money supply, and so far, they've done a pretty good job, really. If you know of a better tool to use, please share it with us, as I'm always interested in improving on old design.



Again, it's not actually a private institution which is stealing all your money. It's private in that the president can't go over to the fed tomorrow, and dictate monetary policy to Bernanke. The president and congress do have oversight over the fed, though, which is the kind of checks and balances you would expect to have.

[edit on 3-4-2010 by Kaytagg]



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by time91
 


many posters here already gave a lot of details regarding the history of the thing, i.e: starting with the Rothschilds and the Bank of England and leading all the way up to the creation of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913.

So, aside from saying that the Federal Reserve is the very KEY of Illuminati power and a Satanic (yes, believe it!), Evil Scam that is sucking the life-blood (money) out of the planet's societies -much like Count Dracula sucks his victims' blood- I would like to just recommend a book and a movie for you:

- The book "Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country" (William Greider)

- The movie "The International" staring Clive Owen & Naomi Watts.

In this movie, they are basically showing us the blatant truth about how the criminal International Bankers run the world. Trust me, check it out! You'll be left speechless...



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Yea, the fed made the great depression worse, and that we should be critical of and learn from their mistakes.

you can read the history of America's epic crashes and booms in the economy when we didn't have a federal reserve (or a fiat money supply), and you can look at an inflation graph going back to the 1700s. The currency was WILDLY unstable, and there were periods of inflation that rival anything the fed has ever done, and periods of deflation which we've never seen since the fed was established.

It can not be denied that, over all, the fed has brought significant stability to the currency. It's also nice having the ability to create money out of thin air, because that gives you the ability to stave off problems in the economy which can be fixed by increased money flows.

The value of the dollar is not determined by the Fed, despite the fact that it is a fiat currency, it is determined by the free market, as the USD is a floating currency. What gives it value is not that we say it's worth "this much" or "that much," but rather by the price points set up buyers and sellers on the forex market -- and it changes a little bit every second.


There's no slavery involved..

And the fed can influence demand (on the forex and overseas and domestically) by increasing or decreasing supply. That's part of how they control inflation.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by rusethorcain
 


I have only one problem with your statement and video. First off, are the Republicans rich? Yes they are, but so are the Democrats. As for the poor poor Democrats wanting to put a little food on the table, and a roof over peoples heads? At who`s expence, todays tax payers and our future tax payers? Sorry, not a grand idea. Why put such a large tax burden on our future generations? Our national debt is already unpayable. As for the video? One can point out many many flaws with any Republican, but the same goes for the Democrates, they are no different. One side is as bad as the other.

So good try at placing the blame on one party, but better luck next time.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Kaytagg
 





It can not be denied that, over all, the fed has brought significant stability to the currency. It's also nice having the ability to create money out of thin air, because that gives you the ability to stave off problems in the economy which can be fixed by increased money flows.


It can be denied, and is quite effectively being denied in this thread, and all you are doing is glossing over what is being said, and arguing that in spite of all its problems a centralized banking system is the best system, but you do not provide any citations, other than pointless Marxist platitudes.




The value of the dollar is not determined by the Fed, despite the fact that it is a fiat currency, it is determined by the free market, as the USD is a floating currency. What gives it value is not that we say it's worth "this much" or "that much," but rather by the price points set up buyers and sellers on the forex market -- and it changes a little bit every second.


The Fed can at any time increase or decrease the money supply and by doing so determine or act to affect the value of the dollar, which is what centralized banks do, they act to artificially stimulate or depress natural markets. Natural markets would be free markets, and central banks exist to artificially manipulate those markets. Of course, myself and others in this thread have dutifully supplied citation after citation to back this up, while you blithely dance in and post a vague dismissal of all this work with nary a citation to back up your rejection of our thoughtful and carefully cited arguments. Indeed, you have admitted that your political ideology leans towards a more controlling Federal Reserve, so of course, you simply ignore any data that contradicts your own ideology and facts be damned, a large cartel of privately owned banks should dictate the monetary policy of the the U.S...indeed, the world.




There's no slavery involved..


A man or woman in debt is a slave, and until that debt is paid, freedom will be restrained. When it is bad business to create a savings account in a bank because the interest rates are being kept at an artificially low rate, while the inflation rate climbs at an artificially high rate, and the only reasonable solution is to consume goods and services, then We the People become slaves to consumerism, never able to build wealth and rise upward economically, but as others have done by metaphorically throwing up their arms in disgust, I now too, do the same and insist that you either operate by your own standards set forth in this thread and begin offering us citations where fiat money is a sound economic policy, or admit you can't provide a respectable rebuttal to all who have offered their reasonable arguments in opposition to the Federal Reserve.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


What citations do you want? I'd be happy to provide them.


Also, the "free market" determines the value of the currency, and it's done, primarily, over the forex. The central bank simply adds to the supply to dilute it, or refine it.



What "marxist platitudes" are you accusing me of making? Have you ever actually read Karl Marx, or is this one of those accusations like when conservatives call Obama "Hitler?" Btw, I've actually read a little Karl Marx -- Wage Labour and Capital. It's a good read. (although, I'm sure by saying "it's a good read," you'll someone use that to discredit me as being a socialist, or some kind of uneducated nonsense like that. Be my guest, if this is your intention)


About the slave part, I more or less agree that debt is slavery -- but this isn't the fault of the federal reserve, it's simply how our capitalist system operates. Don't like it? Save money until you are reasonably out of debt, or live on the streets, or do whatever. Don't expect sympathy from anybody for being lazy and not wanting to work, though.

The federal reserve sets monetary policy, not the member banks of the fed. The member banks are private, but the fed is not; the president assigns the head of the fed, and it is confirmed by the senate.

The fed was also established by the congress, and can be repealed by the congress.

There is no conspiracy of some elite banker owning all the money in America and owning the fed. That's just nonsense.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 04:28 PM
link   
"About the slave part, I more or less agree that debt is slavery -- but this isn't the fault of the federal reserve, it's simply how our capitalist system operates. Don't like it? Save money until you are reasonably out of debt, or live on the streets, or do whatever. Don't expect sympathy from anybody for being lazy and not wanting to work, though. "

Wrong. You are still compelled, under threat of imprisonment, to pay income tax. Regans Grace Commission Report found that :

'100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government. '

So no, you can never legally be out of debt due to the income tax, and it has been shown that all of your income tax goes to servicing the debt created by debt based money. Nothing to do with laziness, and nothing to do with a free market. By your own definition we *are* slaves.

But its clear you dont give a poop and would have us all service this black hole of debt into eternity(and beyond), which is created out of nothing, and have us believe we are doing so cuz we need the overlords of all money everywhere to save us from an 'unstable currency' lol. (when it is in fact the practice of central banking that creates the rollercoaster effect of boom and bust, inflation / deflation that central banking claims to be combating) Holy doublethink batman!

So, do you like, work for these guys or what? Because really, its either that or a serious case of stockholm symdrome~

Phase out the Fed and reintroduce interest free money issued by congress backed by gold and silver, as per your CONSTITUTION. Who in their right minds could be against such common sense? /boggle



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Kaytagg
 





What citations do you want? I'd be happy to provide them.


You could have begun with citations to this assertion:




Also, the "free market" determines the value of the currency, and it's done, primarily, over the forex. The central bank simply adds to the supply to dilute it, or refine it.


First by offering some form of authoritative citation that could better define just what in the hell you mean by "free market", and of course, it must be presumed that your are equating Foreign Exchange Market as free market while ignoring the vast amounts of regulation of business and intervention through manipulation of money supply and interest rates, in order to call this a free market, and the evidence you know this is demonstrated by your compulsion to place quotation marks around the phrase free market when referring to it. Ironically, even though you refer to a free market in the typical fashion of a true Marxist, you ask;




What "marxist platitudes" are you accusing me of making? Have you ever actually read Karl Marx, or is this one of those accusations like when conservatives call Obama "Hitler?" Btw, I've actually read a little Karl Marx -- Wage Labour and Capital. It's a good read. (although, I'm sure by saying "it's a good read," you'll someone use that to discredit me as being a socialist, or some kind of uneducated nonsense like that. Be my guest, if this is your intention)


So let me first answer you by quoting you in this thread first:




Karl Marx said:

To say that "the most favorable condition for wage-labor is the fastest possible growth of productive capital", is the same as to say: the quicker the working class multiplies and augments the power inimical to it – the wealth of another which lords over that class – the more favorable will be the conditions under which it will be permitted to toil anew at the multiplication of bourgeois wealth, at the enlargement of the power of capital, content thus to forge for itself the golden chains by which the bourgeoisie drags it in its train.

They both had a point, except Marx blamed capitalism, while Jefferson blamed banks. Somehow we got the worst of both worlds.


And to further answer your question I read Das Kapital for the first time when I was a freshman in college at 19 years of age, having read The Communist Manifesto in high school. I was a Theater major with a big knee jerk liberal heart and dreams of traveling to Russia and studying Theater method acting, Chekhovian structure, and the idea of a state that sponsored my artistic dreams seemed pretty cool at the time. Then at the tender age of 19 I read Das Kapital and while I struggled through this laborious tome, the more I endeavored to understand what he was saying the more I came to understand that he was admitting that capitalism was the better system.

It was Karl Marx who taught me that the best way to defeat the capitalist system was to undermine its currency because on one can beat a one on one situation. What Marx was saying was that in order to make capitalism appear as if it doesn't work, you must first break it, and the surest way to do that is to undermine its currency, and by admitting that a one on one situation can't be beat, he was admitting that his own system was inferior to that of capitalism. Karl Marx turned me into the dyed in the wool capitalist I am today, and he did so while I was still young and stupid, hence my intolerance for the ideology today as I am fully aware that even the stupid are capable of seeing through Marx.




About the slave part, I more or less agree that debt is slavery -- but this isn't the fault of the federal reserve, it's simply how our capitalist system operates. Don't like it? Save money until you are reasonably out of debt, or live on the streets, or do whatever. Don't expect sympathy from anybody for being lazy and not wanting to work, though.


I am pleased to know we can agree that debt is a form of slavery and I don't understand how you can ignore what was carefully explained to you, that it is the Federal Reserve that is artificially suppressing the interest rates, while simultaneously artificially stimulating inflation, which creates a scenario that prohibits any growth on savings, in fact, diminishes wealth by storing that capital in a bank rather than spend it on goods and services or invest it. However, most people don't have enough to invest and could only create such investment capital through savings, but would lose their purchasing power by doing so, so they instead spend it on goods and services. This is entirely the fault of the Federal Reserve who consciously and purposely intervened to suppress interest rates while simultaneously stimulating inflation, and you can ignore this fact all you want, the more you keep insisting it is not the Federal Reserves fault the more I will keep reminding you of this fact. Unless, of course, you can provide some source or citation that might show me how I am mistaken.




The federal reserve sets monetary policy, not the member banks of the fed. The member banks are private, but the fed is not; the president assigns the head of the fed, and it is confirmed by the senate.


Here are one of those nonsensical utterances that again ignores all that I provided you rife with citations using primarily the Federal Reserves own website to do so, and still here you are pretending as if I haven't done this, and only now is it you setting the record straight. The Federal Reserve is a three pronged agency that consists of seven Board of Governors, headed by a Chairman of the Board, while the second prong is 12 Regional Federal Reserve Banks, all supported by stock holding members which are privately owned banks who then choose their own Directors who in turn choose a president of which five will serve with the Board on the Federal Open Market Commission, on a rotational basis, and that is the Federal Reserve. A system where private banks operate as a cartel to control the monetary policies of a nation, while favoring their own private interests and claiming to act in the public interest.




The fed was also established by the congress, and can be repealed by the congress.


Yeah right. That will surely happen in a political arena where only now is Congress beginning to build the necessary alliances to enforce an audit on the Federal Reserve, and at this point, an audit will only confirm what more and more people are beginning to discover each day and ineffective apologists for the Federal Reserve are going to have to do better than relying upon sophistry and logical fallacies.




There is no conspiracy of some elite banker owning all the money in America and owning the fed. That's just nonsense.


Take the time to find out who owns stocks in the 12 Regional Federal Reserve Banks as I have no doubt you would never just take any body's word for it that banks such as JP Morgan Chase Bank and Citibank are holders of that stock, and also recipients of bailout money. Nonsense? Oh really.

Editors note: My apologies Kaytagg, I did not realize until going back that I double posted a quote of yours when I intended to quote a different text.

[edit on 3-4-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


You want me to define "free market?" Why are you even discussing the fed, when you don't know what "free market" means? That's like a person discussing quantum physics without understanding what the atom is.


To the Dak Kaptial: I haven't read this, but I HIGHLY doubt Karl Marx was "admitting" that capitalism was a better system. It sounds more like you didn't understand it very well, to me. I assume it's not an easy read..

After reading Wage Labour and Capital, I wanted to be a capitalist, because I liked the predator aspect to capitalism. It's hard to morally justify treating people so unfairly, but it has served me well enough; that doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see more equality, however. I would also like to see more social safety nets, because it's unfair to let some people fall on such hard times through no real fault of their own; some people are just born without the right equipment or upbringing to help themselves in any significant way. Although, you'll probably say "who am I to say that," well, just look at the data. The fact of the matter is, we live in a society where the top 10% own, if I'm not mistaken (look it up) 95% of the wealth. And the top 1% owns roughly 33% of the wealth. Mean while, most of the dummies in this country want to blame the federal reserve for this discrepancy, or the NWO, or big government. The fact of the matter is, it's mainly big business interests which have given us the society we live in. People are too dumb to change it, and most of them aren't even aware what the problem is because they'd rather watch monday night football and receive their enlightenment from youtube conspiracy buffs.



The federal reserve has nothing to do with your ability to save or spend money. If you have even the slightest financial education, you can work around inflation very easily with minimal risk. The simplest way is through commodities; to that end, gold is the most popular, but not necessarily the best.

Don't blame the federal reserve for your complete lack of financial understanding.


If you open a bank, you are forced to buy stock in the federal reserve. So every bank that exists on American shores is a partial owner of the fed.. I fail to see how that is some huge conspiracy, or how that related to GS or JPM "owning the fed" in any meaningful sense of the word.



And btw, have you bothered to even consider your own theories? That GS/JPM owns the fed, that the fed is secretly giving all it's money to these institutions, but somehow they still went bankrupt even though they own the fed which can make free money for them so they had to go through congress and make a big public hubub about getting bailout money, but GS actually got most of its bailout money through AIG by way of credit default swaps for its mortgage backed securities which failed?

That makes no god damn sense. If GS owned the printing press, why would they even bother showing up to work every day? Do you realize how easily shot down your conspiracy theories are? Or that they make no god damn sense at all? Have you ever thought about this?



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Kaytagg
 


It's realy quite simple Congress outsourced that job too!




Article I Section 8 - Powers of Congress

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures


The Fed Should not Exist! It's Congress' Job!

Congress does very little if any of their jobs under Article I Section 8



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Kaytagg
 





You want me to define "free market?" Why are you even discussing the fed, when you don't know what "free market" means? That's like a person discussing quantum physics without understanding what the atom is.


Who do you think you're kidding? This is not the preschool playground and silly insults and poorly cast aspersions will not work to support your arguments. I did not ask you to define free market, I asked you to explain what the hell it is you mean by "free market" and to provide some sort of source or citation to back that up. Clearly you didn't bother to look at the link I provided, nor were you prudent enough to take the out I offered you and simply acknowledging that yes by "free market" you were equating the ForEx with a free market, and meant to distinguish that from the classical understanding of what a free market is.

Let's be clear about this, a free market is where buyers and sellers can contract as they please without any interference, except for the forces of supply and demand. The currency they use is a currency backed by fixed wealth that can measured and weighed, so that all may know and agree upon its value, and there is massive competition in the market not subject to the licensing schemes of intrusive governments.

That sort of free market requires no quotation marks around it and no need to be disingenuous by what is meant by free market. That sort of free market instantly becomes non existent the minute a government imposes upon the markets a centralized bank that manipulates the money supply and interest rates, and worse, has created fiat money instead of money backed by wealth. That sort of system is not a free market and is more akin to a Keynesian system of economics where heavy government regulation of the market place is the policy.

You are not kidding a single free market advocate with your silly insults, and no amount of quoting free market while equating it to Forex will alter the classical understanding of the term.




To the Dak Kaptial: I haven't read this, but I HIGHLY doubt Karl Marx was "admitting" that capitalism was a better system. It sounds more like you didn't understand it very well, to me. I assume it's not an easy read..


I have never met a Marx sympathizer who has, and all HIGHLY doubt Marx said what he did, or at the very least doubt my translation of a book they never read. I can not help that you have never read Das Kapital, but at least I read that which you didn't of which you so smugly insist I did not understand. Please.




After reading Wage Labour and Capital, I wanted to be a capitalist, because I liked the predator aspect to capitalism. It's hard to morally justify treating people so unfairly, but it has served me well enough; that doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see more equality, however.


You want to know the difference between a capitalist and a communist? In capitalism man exploits man, and in communism it is the other way around.

You may be attracted to predatory acts, and you may think such a predatory nature has served you well, but that predatory nature would not just disappear under a communist or socialist economy and you would still exploit others just as you have admitted to doing so now.




I would also like to see more social safety nets, because it's unfair to let some people fall on such hard times through no real fault of their own; some people are just born without the right equipment or upbringing to help themselves in any significant way. Although, you'll probably say "who am I to say that," well, just look at the data.


More and more social safety nets are created each year and yet still there are poor. You look at the data? What data are you talking about? More than two thousand years ago a Judaic rabbi said:

"The poor you have with you always..."

His words remain as true today as they were then, and his instructions on how to handle the poor were not directed at any government or institution, but directed at the individuals who got his message. His instructions to help the poor were clear and undeniable and he did not suggest we create a social system through government, he suggested we each do what we can individually until we can do no more. No one is preventing you from helping those who have fallen on hard times, particularly since you claim your predatory nature has served you well. Alas, you would instead demand a tyrannical government tax the hell out of us all so they can implement through typical incompetence a poorly run agency that pretends to assist the poor while their ranks just grow in size. What data can you provide that would contradict that I wonder?




The fact of the matter is, we live in a society where the top 10% own, if I'm not mistaken (look it up) 95% of the wealth.


This is exactly what I am referring to by your cavalier and thoughtless form of argument. You insist those who have problems with the Federal Reserve provide citations and then, even after you've been called on it, you lazily toss out numbers and suggest I do the research to verify it. Why should I? You've ignored virtually all the research I have done and cited thus far, why keep doing it expecting a different result. What if I discover data that contradicts your claim, will you insist I probably misinterpreted the data not really sure because you can't even be bothered to check out the link I provided?

Let's not worry about your laziness and for the sake of argument accept that the top 10% own 95% of the wealth. How did it get that way? Through the reliance of free market principles? No, it was through the reliance of "free market" principles, which is to say Keynesian capitalism, which is a lot like saying Smithonian communism, where communists change their monetary policy and adopt Adam Smiths' philosophy all the while happily calling themselves communist. Hell, to a lesser degree that's exactly what China has done with Hong Kong, because they wisely understood, why fix what ain't broken?




The fact of the matter is, it's mainly big business interests which have given us the society we live in.


The fact of the matter is that capitalism is based upon three main principles:

1.) Massive competition where the natural failures of business will not be felt in the market place as competitors rise up to replace them.

2.) A free and unregulated market where anyone can sell and anyone can buy.

3.) A currency backed by inherent wealth that can be fixed as a standard by which all can agree upon the value.

Not one of those tenets are in play in today's market, nowhere near a free market, and when big business rises its ugly head, it is certain we are not operating in a free and unregulated market, as big business can't get big without the manipulation and suppression of markets. By big I mean multi national conglomerate big and not the midsized big that happens from the natural success of doing business well.




People are too dumb to change it, and most of them aren't even aware what the problem is because they'd rather watch monday night football and receive their enlightenment from youtube conspiracy buffs.


Uh-huh. People aren't as dumb as you think they are and given its Saturday, I wonder what sports you are watching and what youtube video taught you that we live in a "free market" society where a centralized bank only exists to help us. Perhaps you are just projecting?




The federal reserve has nothing to do with your ability to save or spend money. If you have even the slightest financial education, you can work around inflation very easily with minimal risk. The simplest way is through commodities; to that end, gold is the most popular, but not necessarily the best.


I guess those youtube videos haven't got to the part where the Federal government confiscated everybody's gold back in 1933.




People who scoff at the suggestion that the government might restrict private gold ownership should remember that many other countries have restrictions on (or absolute prohibitions against) private gold ownership. They should also remember that, in 1933, Franklin Delano Roosevelt dealt with a monetary and banking crisis by confiscating all privately owned gold; paying for the gold at $20.67 per ounce; immediately devaluing the dollar by 40 percent; and setting the price of gold at $35.00 per ounce. At a single stroke, Roosevelt increased the government's gold assets, stabilized the monetary system and increased wholesale prices by more than 33 percent. However, he also inflicted losses of 40 percent on gold owners and stripped them of the gold that they saved to insure their financial futures.


www.blanchardonline.com...




Don't blame the federal reserve for your complete lack of financial understanding.


You have no idea what a free market is, you weren't even sharp enough to take the out I provided you and claim it means working through ForEx, which actually was the 2nd definition provided by the link I provided, and yet you foolishly make this remark. You blather on endlessly about how you view the world and how it makes you feel seemingly unaware of the plethora of schools of economics that exist today, such as the Saltwater school, the Freshwater school, the Austrian school, the Stockholm school, the Keynesian school, and most assuredly have no idea what the current heterodox schools are all about. (Sigh)

I am out of space again and can't quote in this post your horrendous misinterpretation of stock purchase in the Federal Reserve. Read it again, if you wish to be a member of one of the Regional Banks purchasing stock is required as a term of membership.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Kaytagg
 





And btw, have you bothered to even consider your own theories? That GS/JPM owns the fed, that the fed is secretly giving all it's money to these institutions, but somehow they still went bankrupt even though they own the fed which can make free money for them so they had to go through congress and make a big public hubub about getting bailout money, but GS actually got most of its bailout money through AIG by way of credit default swaps for its mortgage backed securities which failed?


What the hell are you talking about? None of this nonsense is anything I have claimed and only confirms my suspicion that your are not even bothering to read the entirety of my posts so arrogantly convinced that I have not read Marx, and I spend my Mondays watching football and get my education from Youtube. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously if you aren't even willing to think just a little and take the time to consider what is being communicated to you instead of excitedly pressing that reply button just sure your next post filled with bad sophistry and silly fallacies will be that zinger that finally wins you a debate. Good luck with that.




That makes no god damn sense. If GS owned the printing press, why would they even bother showing up to work every day? Do you realize how easily shot down your conspiracy theories are? Or that they make no god damn sense at all? Have you ever thought about this?


If you had bothered to actually read what I had posted you would know I did not offer any conspiracy theory and simply relied upon the facts, to explain what my problem with the Federal Reserve is, just as you asked for.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Kaytagg
 


Because I LOVE the Constitution??



Article I - Section 8:

"The Congress shall have Power... To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof..."

Article I - Section 10:

"No State shall ... coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts..."


There is no amendment to the Constitution that has in any way altered these provisions


"Paper is liable to be abused, has been, is, and forever will be abused, in every country in which it is permitted" -- Thomas Jefferson


Creature From Jekyll Island


Google Video Link



The Money Masters - How International Bankers Gained Control of America


Google Video Link


Money as Debt


Google Video Link


Money as Debt II


Theft By Deception - Deciphering The Federal Income Tax



Google Video Link


861 Evidence - A Disturbing Expose of the United States Income Tax System


Google Video Link





"The Founders lifted the nation from economic depression to prosperity and progress. They did it by a Constitutional mandate for a sound currency - one which the government could not manipulate, one that had intrinsic value for the citizens holding it. The Constitution protected the individual's right to own precious metals and to use them as a medium of exchange. And the results were amazing- even to Mr. Washington." - Our Ageless Constitution pg 37



So.. after understanding all this material the real question is...



Why do YOU LOVE the FED?


[edit on 3-4-2010 by reeferman]



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 02:31 AM
link   
Because the FED has admitted to breaking the law and it's Federal Mandate and did so only after a FOIA request from Bloomberg news.

I have not tried to post another web site reference before I hope this works.

market-ticker.denninger.net...

I personally think that this article should be explored on its own thread. But alas being new and not much of a computer hack I'm not sure how to do that either. Maybe someone with more experence than I could do better.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join