posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 04:12 AM
reply to post by Darkchemistry
Watched the link you referenced and noticed that the Congressman interviewed invoked hari-kari when describing the United States' 20% loss of wealth
in 18 months under the Bush admin (note: my Kabukii theatre reference bears no relation to the Congressman's interview). Okay, he's a Democrat and
no surprise that the buck stopped there.
The Congressman appeared to gently press that campaign finance reform is the vaccine necessary to prevent further economic downturns. I agree
there's truth to that, yes, but it's not a full spectrum solution in my estimation.
In turning back to Mr. Ratigan I'll display some charity and recognize that he is reporting need-to-know information. Still, the discount rate has
been and presumably always will outstrip the schmuck rate. It's the golden goose egg or whatever. Neither Mr. Ratigan nor the Congressman delve
further and explain that by creating more money (i.e. money multiplier protocol) banks necessitate the need to create more money simply to pay the
interest on the created money. That, in and of itself, is scam-worthy in my opinion. What store of value is in that money? The only answer I get is
this: If you don't want your money then I'll take it. Of course that's not an answer, but deflection and merely recognizes that the pyschology of
belief outweighs the reality of value. All said I interpret the creation of money via money mult. effect to represent illusion, or sleight-of-hand
theatre as previously noted. Maybe it's just how a handful of dudes and gals can prevent their velvet gloves from getting dirty? I dunno.
After watching the vid.. I understood what you meant by rates fluctuating and agree. If it's eternal destiny for the U.S. to have a central bank
then at the very least the chairman and entourage ought to conform interest rates according to market value. I imagine that's a political hot
potatoe though, or more easily said than done at this juncture. Moreover, it still doesn't address the Fed's structure and our system of money
creation. In my opinion there's a void in money's real (by real I mean its non psychological impact) store of value under fiat regimes. Granted
the entire world is basically a fiat regime, but a raw look at the system makes me wonder why people honor as a medium of exchange money based on
government decree when many governments do not control their money supply. And you know that if either one of us attempted to create and use currency
for exchange among others we'd see a grand jury inidictment sooner than not. This demonstrates to me that states and powerful interests don't like
competition, but rather monopolize on channeling its greatest resource (i.e. you, me, and all others) under a common currency. Granted there is
utility in that, but it's based solely on political economy and does not reflect the aggregate schema that many people making transactions amongst
themselves in times of crisis and/or scandal might choose instead. So rather than solve problems as a people thru economic interactions of our making
we must succumb to the authority of a system that inhibits choice. I suppose there are many folks out there who are fearful of being afforded choice,
but I'm not one of them.
In summary I pretty much embrace the idea that economic woe is instantiated by a lack of choice; and I doubt there's a solid arguement to be given
that our choices are not limited at the level presently being discussed.