Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

11 lies about the Federal Reserve.... Article which immediately gets DEBUNKED!

page: 5
115
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by crankyoldman
 


Maritime law?
What does that have to do with the Fed or central banks?




posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by gorgi


The new deal helped a lot. Do you just make this stuff up ?


No, I showed you some links. Did you read them? Especially the last one? When government spends, the private sector (who are the ones who bring real value) into the market contracts.



Eery year that FDR increased spending GDP went up. It declined when he listened to the opposition in 1937 and it declined again.

Then when WW2 came the economy got even better due to the massive spending.


Yes, it went up. But the government spending went up dramatically, causing the debt to shoot up. You can't spend more than your income for an endless amount of time. It also counts for governments. Sooner or later you will be deeply indebted. Just like the majority of governments are indebted by the trillions.

Here's another link that completely debunks the notion that the New Deal saved the economy.

Great Myths Of The Great Depression

The same text in video form:




And another, much shorter video.




edit on 12-10-2012 by TheBandit795 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Oh yeah... And austerity works in Estonia. It's has had the best recovery out of all EU countries.

www.nationalreview.com...

Much to Paul Krugman's chagrin.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   
To be fair I read this from the federal reserve's website.

"The Federal Reserve Bank of New York is one of 12 regional Reserve Banks which, together with the Board of Governors in Washington, D.C., make up the Federal Reserve System. The Fed, as the system is commonly called, is an independent governmental entity created by Congress in 1913 to serve as the central bank of the United States. It is responsible for

formulating and executing monetary policy
Keynesian economics.
supervising and regulating depository institutions,
A monopoly on supervision and regulation of deposit institutions. Why can't another agency compete?
providing an elastic currency,
Worthless FIAT currency.
assisting the federal government's financing operations, and
Why does the US need to be assisted by privately owned banks through a regional reserve system?
serving as the banker for the U.S. government.
A monopoly on money. No one else can compete. "

Why does the federal reserve cartel have a monopoly on banking with the US government? Why can't another reserve compete with them?

Why can't another currency compete with their fiat currency?

Ron Paul makes this claim here...



and here...

edit on 12-10-2012 by John_Rodger_Cornman because: (no reason given)
edit on 12-10-2012 by TheBandit795 because: Fixed your links.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Amsel (Amschel) Bauer Mayer Rothschild, 1838: "Let me issue and control a Nation's money and I care not who makes its laws".

Letter written from London by the Rothschilds to their New York agents introducing their banking method into America: "The few who can understand the system will be either so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favours, that there will be no opposition from that class, while, on the other hand, that great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that Capital derives from the system, will bear its burden without complaint and, perhaps, without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests."

Austrian Prince Mettemich's secretary wrote of the Rothschilds, as early as 1818, that: "... they are the richest people in Europe."

Referring to James Rothschild, the poet Heinrich Heine said: "Money is the god of our times, and Rothschild is his prophet."

James Rothschild built his fabulous mansion, called Ferrilres, 19 miles north-east of Paris. Wilhelm I, on first seeing it, exclaimed: "Kings couldn't afford this. It could only belong to a Rothschild!"

Author Frederic Morton wrote that the Rothschilds had: "conquered the World more thoroughly, more cunningly, and much more lastingly than all the Caesars before..."

As Napoleon pointed out: "Terrorism, War & Bankruptcy are caused by the privatization of money, issued as a debt and compounded by interest "- he cancelled debt and interest in France - hence the Battle of Waterloo.



By this method, the trillionaire masters of the universe remain hidden whilst Forbes magazine poses lower ranking billionaires like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett as the richest men in the World. Retired management consultant Gaylon Ross Sr, author of Who's Who of the Global Elite, has been tipped from a private source that the combined wealth of the Rockefeller family in 1998 was approx (US) $11 trillion and the Rothschilds (U.S.) $100 trillion.


I always suspected Ron Paul was controlled opposition and that is why he wants competing currencies rather than just to nationalise the FED, erase the fraudulent debt and throw the bilderbergers in prison where they belong.

rense.com...
edit on 12/10/12 by EarthCitizen07 because: add link and fix quotes



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Res Ipsa
reply to post by crankyoldman
 


Maritime law?
What does that have to do with the Fed or central banks?


That's a huge topic, but the cliff's notes version is this. The "birth certificate" is a maritime thing, in which boats prove their purpose, cargo, value etc. applied to humans. On the land, the human cannot have their freewill usurped unless they agree, on the water life is different for some reason. So, when a human in the US is born, they are turned into property in the form of a corporate fiction via the birth certificate. Then, money is printed in their name by the central bank and given to the us government - millions but the number isn't clear to me, and, that person, by the acceptance of the contract created by the birth certificate agrees to pay the money back, with interest, through the collection agency know as the revenue service. The "original" birth certificate is actually a "stock" as in "live stock" certificate and is kept from you, you can only get a copy and is used as collateral - I expect more money is loaned later as well, but at higher interest. All "income" tax goes to pay off they debt, not for services. At 18 you have 90 days to reject the contract, which means, you get no passport, no SS not government services like welfare etc. But no one is told of the option.

The Federal Reserve is a private company, that of course would never "loan" money unless it had collateral. After the US went bankrupt, again, in 1913, the collateral became the animal stock - you can me, stock, get it? The reason for the ruse is freewill, which humans are never, ever taught about, which states, you cannot be forced to do anything you want unless you agree. On a boat, the captain is the law, not freewill - as safety is the issue, so the banking folks just applied the law of the seas to the land, so when you "agree" to be a part of the system you agree to man-made laws, rather then universal law. Slaves have no rights, no say, not freewill, by handing you a BC and reducing you to a name, you are a slave with no rights, as that's what slaves are - for god or bad.



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 03:15 AM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 



It is all about who runs the show and for who


Selecting the perfect persons to run the show is theoretically possible, although if that can be done, why not have a monarchy?

The problem with a non corrupt centralized system is that it is no smarter that the people in charge. No subset of the population is smarter than the whole population in terms of knowing what every individual wants (or is motivated by), all of the information about local conditions and changes in local conditions, and what each individual is capable of doing best at any given time.

A centralized system implies that the ruling mechanism is divinely knowledgeable and has the ability to make decisions for each individual, better than that individual, all the time.

Kind of like saying that nothing is real that the guy in charge doesn't know.



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 03:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Teebs
The thing about Austrian economics, along with almost all other current or past market-based theory - is that it's based on a false assumption: That there is not enough life sustaining resources for everyone on this planet to 'make it'. This assumption was valid at one point in history when there really was true, natural scarcity - however this is no longer the case, nor has it been for several decades.

For example, we currently produce enough food to feed 10 Billion people
www.huffingtonpost.com...

We only have 7 billion people to feed

Yet there are 1 billion people starving on this planet
www.guardian.co.uk...

It's simply not necessary. We don't have to play this game anymore where we just say "Every man for himself!" with the assumption that there's not enough to go around and so the best method to decide who gets the resources to live is to just let everyone fight over it and that the 'strongest will survive' (a disgusting distortion of Darwin's theory).

All of that economic theory is outdated - it's no longer relevant to our rapidly advancing technological reality. All these long-dead economists like Ludwig Von Mises had no way to fathom the vast implications that our current levels of technical development would have on our society - open-source software, 3-D printing, the Internet, etc.

As humans we all have the same basic needs and we now have the ability to meet all of those needs, for EVERYONE on the planet. We're all on the same team here, let's work together to break free of these outdated, irrelevant modes of thinking. It's holding us back as a species.


The word you are refering to is scarcity

It is in all economics text books, not specifically Austrian ones.

Scarcity means that there is always a limited supply of anything. Freshly baked bread, river front real estate, Tuesday afternoon appointments, funny jokes within earshot; the supply of anything is limited and therefore human beings make choices.

Austrian Economics lets each person choose from the widest possible array of things all of the time.



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 03:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by gorgi


Oh wow! All these people commenting have no idea how the Fed works or have never studied economics. Sure you have studied Austrian economics, but thats a joke and is not taken seriously by any real economist.

Worked in the great depression and its working now.
Also there is a reason why Austrian "economics" isnt taken seriously. There is no empirical data, no math, no proofs, nothing. Its politics disguised as "economics".


Keynesian or top down control of economics also has no proof. It does require control by a ruling elite, however.

The central bank caused the Great Depression by distorting the real value of everything and facilitating government guesswork that caused confusion and restriction in business planning.

All of the economists that predicted the Great Depression and the current depression were and are Austrian Free Market econmists.



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Semicollegiate

Originally posted by gorgi


Oh wow! All these people commenting have no idea how the Fed works or have never studied economics. Sure you have studied Austrian economics, but thats a joke and is not taken seriously by any real economist.

Worked in the great depression and its working now.
Also there is a reason why Austrian "economics" isnt taken seriously. There is no empirical data, no math, no proofs, nothing. Its politics disguised as "economics".


Keynesian or top down control of economics also has no proof. It does require control by a ruling elite, however.

The central bank caused the Great Depression by distorting the real value of everything and facilitating government guesswork that caused confusion and restriction in business planning.

All of the economists that predicted the Great Depression and the current depression were and are Austrian Free Market econmists.


The Fed did not cause it. Lack of regulation did. The gold standard made it worse by not allowing any kind of monetary control. Its a dumb idea to tie you money supply to a shiny metal mined from the ground.



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 04:22 AM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 




Increasing productivity is one way to bring prices down but at the same time creates unemployment. Quality of merchandise is another factor in determining prices.


Periods of unemployment are short for individuals in a normal economy. Labor is a scarce resource in a country with a low birthrate and closed borders. We get tha bad part of nationalism, wars from mistakes and taxes, but we don't get the good part, closed borders.

Also periods of unemployment are unavoidable assuming technological advancement. For example, if the economy was managed to prevent loss of work in the economy of 1790, we would all still be riding horses.




When the economy expands there is a demand for more money, conversely when it shrinks money should be taken away to prevent inflation. When it stagnates keep the current supply. An important factor to consider would be population size; the greater the population the greater the supply of money.


When the economy expands due to an expectance and aquired dependance on credit, then economy need more money to continue its regular procedure.

The economy could expand on invested savings and profits, which would never lead to a depression, only varying rates of improved productivity.

Central bank credit is artificial and its administration is subject to human error. All boom and bust cycles are based on the mistakes made by the controllers of the currency. Pump and dump.

A currency that has a steady value would eliminate the boom and bust cycle in and of itself.



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 04:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheBandit795

Originally posted by gorgi


The new deal helped a lot. Do you just make this stuff up ?


No, I showed you some links. Did you read them? Especially the last one? When government spends, the private sector (who are the ones who bring real value) into the market contracts.



Eery year that FDR increased spending GDP went up. It declined when he listened to the opposition in 1937 and it declined again.

Then when WW2 came the economy got even better due to the massive spending.


Yes, it went up. But the government spending went up dramatically, causing the debt to shoot up. You can't spend more than your income for an endless amount of time. It also counts for governments. Sooner or later you will be deeply indebted. Just like the majority of governments are indebted by the trillions.

Here's another link that completely debunks the notion that the New Deal saved the economy.

Great Myths Of The Great Depression

The same text in video form:




And another, much shorter video.




edit on 12-10-2012 by TheBandit795 because: (no reason given)


Well I supose I should make up a youtube video now. I suppose it counts as proof now.

Yes spending and debt went up. That got us out of the depression. So what if we have a national debt. I really dont think you have any real training in economics. Please dont act like you do



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 04:44 AM
link   


But technically, the Treasury Department prints money on the Fed's behalf. Asking the Treasury Department to print cash isn't even necessary for the Fed to buy securities.

Love that one
You have to be Harvard educated to come up with this.



The Fed, as the system is commonly called, is an independent governmental entity created by Congress in 1913
Word Games 101.
Dissection of "independent governmental entity".
independent - private
governmental - which governs itself
entity - enterprise - business

Addition of "created by Congress in 1913" is there to give a reassuring feeling that all is fine and it is good for you the reader.



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 05:03 AM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 



There should be no big investors in the first place. The fact some people have trillions of dollars like the rockefellers and rothschilds tells the whole story. These people accumulated the money from laissez faire capitalism and lack of anti-trust legislation enforcement. Your methods are precisely what enables such enormous criminal rackets to develop.


Big investors take advantage of big goverment. Rockefeller made his initial stake from selling provender to the US Government during the Civil War. He made his monopoly using railroads on steriods from federal subsidies.


Rothchilds made their biggest money from central banks. Central banks are government, not lazze-faire.

Gov 3
Lazze-faire 0


BS! Nationalisation implies soveriegn ownership of the means of production by every citizen of that nation, state or city. Laissez faire capitalism is good for small time entrepreneurs all the way up to mid-size business, then mutinational corporations take over and turn everything into a corporate banking fascist dictatorship.


Nationalization implies the means of control of everything by whomever can get in the driverseat.

Mega corps need mega governance to enforce the mega lexicon of 'free trade' law that they bought.



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 05:52 AM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 



Well, it seems you have "middle ages european" view of government basically resembling monarchies. Every government I know of has a judicial, executive and legislative branch. By small I guess you mean a military only government, which is typical of conservative minded individuals. I am not making fun of you, I just disagree that is what we need.


I was thinking prototypical or aboriginal government like sumer or ancient mesopotamia, ancient pre indo-european india or ancient china. They all had barbarian invasion problems and that is the justification I've heard mostly to assume that the largest government is neccessary and why it was originally able to take authority away from smaller units of local government.

The smallest government would probably be a jury system of some number from 11 to whatever, and a militia system of some kind. Assuming that everyone was raised with this sort of government in mind. That's like the biggest single issue regarding human society, how people are raised and what they think they are.



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 



There should be no big investors in the first place. The fact some people have trillions of dollars like the rockefellers and rothschilds tells the whole story. These people accumulated the money from laissez faire capitalism and lack of anti-trust legislation enforcement. Your methods are precisely what enables such enormous criminal rackets to develop.


Big investors take advantage of big goverment. Rockefeller made his initial stake from selling provender to the US Government during the Civil War. He made his monopoly using railroads on steriods from federal subsidies.


Rothchilds made their biggest money from central banks. Central banks are government, not lazze-faire.

Gov 3
Lazze-faire 0


Okay. Lets try one more time.......

The multinational corporations have setup manufacturing overseas to substantially save on labor cost, then they import the merchandise back to america tariff-free. That means there is no protectionism for americans to keep their jobs.

Anti-trust laws are not enforced and that is what allows corporations to buy each other up and/or merge, to create unfair competition standards with small and medium business. These small and medium business then need to hire illegal mexicans so that they can save a few bucks and try to be competitive with big business.

Do you get why "WE DO HAVE LAZZE-FAIRE?" If not then I give up with you....



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Central banks are government, not lazze-faire.


NO. THEY ARE PRIVATE! Private means profit-orientated.

The central bank could not give a rat's ass if the government is big or small.



BS! Nationalisation implies soveriegn ownership of the means of production by every citizen of that nation, state or city. Laissez faire capitalism is good for small time entrepreneurs all the way up to mid-size business, then mutinational corporations take over and turn everything into a corporate banking fascist dictatorship.


Nationalization implies the means of control of everything by whomever can get in the driverseat.

Mega corps need mega governance to enforce the mega lexicon of 'free trade' law that they bought.


Western european nations have had the highest quality of life standards throughout the world, despite the rothschilds breathing down their collective necks. Then somone came up with the EU and ECB and sent everything to kingdom kong.

The real downturn of the global economy was when reagan in america and thatcher in the uk decided to privatise and deregulate everything with various pretenses. I swear these people were evil as hell. When you do this that means business has the upper hand and workers get screwed.

You can be for business all you want, and let me be for the workers. Fair enough? I understand you need to use sophistry to make your case because the majority of people are indeed workers and telling them straight up that they need to bend over and take it would be obscene and self-defeating. Lying goes a long way, does'nt it?



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 



NO. THEY ARE PRIVATE! Private means profit-orientated.

The central bank could not give a rat's ass if the government is big or small.


Yes, they (central banks) are private. And their status as monopolies is enforced by law. So they are creatures of the goverment.

Here is some evidence. The Liberty Dollar was a private currency. An ounce of silver or other precious metal was deposited in a warehouse and a paper certificate representing that metal was issued.

It was declared criminal by the socialistic goverment and prosecuted as terrorism.
Liberty Dollar wiki


Numerous individuals within the U.S. Government have been interviewed regarding the Liberty Dollar. The Liberty Dollar organization asserts that one U.S. Secret Service agent has stated "It's not counterfeit money"[12]

In 2006 the U.S. Mint issued a press release stating that prosecutors at the Justice Department had determined that using Liberty Dollars as circulating money is a federal crime. The press release also stated that the "Liberty Dollars" are meant to compete with the circulating coinage (currency) of the United States and such competition consequently is a criminal act.[14]


Liberty Dollar Creator Convicted in Federal Court


“Attempts to undermine the legitimate currency of this country are simply a unique form of domestic terrorism,” U.S. Attorney Anne Tompkins said. “While these forms of anti-government activities do not involve violence, they are every bit as insidious and represent a clear and present danger to the economic stability of this country.”


And the central bank needs a powerful, i.e. big, government to keep its monopoly.



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 



The multinational corporations have setup manufacturing overseas to substantially save on labor cost, then they import the merchandise back to america tariff-free. That means there is no protectionism for americans to keep their jobs.


Tariffs are actions by a government. Any one who uses a tariff is using the government. You are assuming that no one would ever use a socialist goverment in ant bad way, perhaps in some way that is difficult to discern.

Gov 4
Lazze-Faire 0


Do you get why "WE DO HAVE LAZZE-FAIRE?" If not then I give up with you....


You are confusing multiple choice with freedom of choice.





new topics

top topics



 
115
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join