TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Zietgeist - The Movie (AKA THE TRUTH)
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »
The fact that Culorut endorces this load of shit is reason enough to discount it out of hand.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Moral Hazard The fact that Culorut endorces this load of shit is reason enough to discount it out of hand. |
It is incredible how you morons still do not get the point that it does not matter who is necessarily endorsing the documentary.
The point(s) and facts are in the actual documentary itself and that is all that matters, not what a few trolls on a message board who destroy every thread they touch are saying about it.
Your words do not matter, only the real content does.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by culorut Your words do not matter, only the real content does. |
A very interesting documentary that inspires very stupid flame wars wherever it is posted.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN precisely our point! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Capitalizt A very interesting documentary that inspires very stupid flame wars wherever it is posted. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by culorut So you have finally converted to the truth and are willing to stop polluting this forum? Thanks, now fu*k off. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN For documentaries to be "interesting" they must (at the very least) present information that is more than ignorant conjecture. The movie is a load of bollocks. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Capitalizt I found the entire religous section very informative. As for the fed, I already knew those facts. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN "facts" ? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Capitalizt ya, rly. I know the creators of the movie stick their personal opinions in from time to time...but the history behind the fed is out there ifor everyone to see. They do a good job explaining how it came to be, and what it is doing today. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN I don�t remember the specifics, but is it as factual and compelling as the 9/11 section? i do remember their attempt to pass the creation of the fed off as some secret conspiracy though. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krypton Um, it was... Does Jekyll Island ring a bell? |
here it is, in case anyone missed it.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider Sure ... On the Georgian resort hideaway of Jekyll Island (which has some excellent golf courses, by the way), there once met a coalition of Wall Street bankers and U.S. senators. This secret 1910 meeting had a sinister purpose, the conspiracy theorists say. The bankers wanted to establish a new central bank under the direct control of New York's financial elite. Such a plan would give the Wall Street bankers near total control of the financial system and allow them to manipulate it for their personal gain. G. Edward Griffin lays out this conspiratorial version of history in his book The Creature from Jekyll Island. His amateurish take on history is highly suspect, however. Gerry Rough, in a series of well- researched essays on U.S. banking history, reveals many historical inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and even contradictions in Griffin's book and others of its genre. Instead of reproducing Rough's work here, I offer the reader a substantially more accurate view of the events leading up to the creation of the Federal Reserve System in 1913. To get a proper historical perspective, the story of begins just prior to the Civil War... The National Banking Acts of 1863 & 1864 Prior to the Civil war there were thousands of banks in operation throughout the Union, all of them chartered, that is, licensed by the state governments. Banking regulations were virtually nonexistent. The federal government had no meaningful controls on banking practices, and state regulations were spotty and poorly enforced at best. Economic historians call the era leading up to the Civil War as the 'state banking era' or the 'free banking era.' The problems with state banking were numerous, but three were conspicuous. First, the nation had no unified currency. State banks issued their own bank notes as currency, a system which at worst invited severe bouts of counterfeiting and at best introduced additional uncertainty in the task of determining the relative value of each bank note. Second, with no mitigating influence on the issuance of bank notes, the money supply and the price level were highly unstable, introducing and perhaps causing additional volatility in the business cycle. This was due in part to the fact that bank note issuance was frequently tied to the market value of the bank's bond portfolio which they were required to have by law. Third, frequent bank runs resulted in substantial depositor losses and severe crises of confidence in the payments system.5 The National Banking Acts of 1863 and 1864 were attempts to assert some degree of federal control over the banking system without the formation of another central bank. The Act had three primary purposes: (1) create a system of national banks, (2) to create a uniform national currency, and (3) to create an active secondary market for Treasury securities to help finance the Civil War (for the Union�s side).5 The first provision of the Acts was to allow for the incorporation of national banks. These banks were essentially the same as state banks, except national banks received their charter from the federal government and not a state government. This arrangement gave the federal government regulatory jurisdiction over the national banks it created, whereas it asserted no control over state-chartered banks. National banks had higher capital requirements and higher reserve requirements than their state bank counterparts. To improve liquidity and safety they were restricted from making real estate loans and could not lend to any single person an amount exceeding ten percent of the bank's capital. The National Banking Acts also created under the Treasury Department the office of Comptroller of the Currency. The duties of the office were to inspect the books of the national banks to insure compliance with the above regulations, to hold Treasury securities deposited there by national banks, and, via the Bureau of Engraving, to design and print all national banknotes.5 The second goal of the National Banking Acts was to create a uniform national currency. Rather than have several hundred, or several thousand, forms of currency circulating in the states, conducting transactions could be greatly simplified if there were a uniform currency. To achieve this all national banks were required to accept at par the bank notes of other national banks. This insured that national bank notes would not suffer from the same discounting problem with which state bank notes were afflicted. In addition, all national bank notes were printed by the Comptroller of the Currency on behalf of the national banks to guarantee standardization in appearance and quality. This reduced the possibility of counterfeiting, an understandable wartime concern.5 The third goal of the Acts was to help finance the Civil War. The volume of notes which a national bank issued was based on the market value of the U.S. Treasury securities the bank held. A national bank was required to keep on deposit with the Comptroller of the Currency a sizable volume of Treasury securities. In exchange the bank received bank notes worth 90 percent, and later 100 percent, of the market value of the deposited bonds. If the bank wished to extend additional loans to generate more profits, then the bank had to increase its holdings of Treasury bonds. This provision had its roots in the Michigan Act, and it was designed to create a more active secondary market for Treasury bonds and thus lower the cost of borrowing for the federal government.5 It was the hope of Secretary of the Treasury Chase that national banks would replace state banks, and that this would create the uniform currency he desired and ease the financing of the Civil War. By 1865 there were 1,500 national banks, about 800 of which had converted from state banking charters. The remainder were new banks. However, this still meant that state bank notes were dominating the currency because most of them were discounted. Accordingly, the public hoarded the national bank notes. To reduced the proliferation of state banking and the notes it generated, Congress imposed a ten percent tax on all outstanding state bank notes. There was no corresponding tax of national bank notes. Many state banks decided to convert to national bank charters because the tax made state banking unprofitable. By 1870 there were 1,638 national banks and only 325 state banks.5 While the tax eventually eliminated the circulation of state bank notes, it did not entirely kill state banking because state banks began to use checking accounts as a substitute for bank notes. Checking accounts became so popular that by 1890 the Comptroller of the Currency estimated that only ten percent of the nation's money supply was in the form of currency. Combined with lower capital and reserve requirements, as well as the ease with which states issued banking charters, state banks again became the dominant banking form by the late 1880�s. Consequently, the improvements to safety that the national banking system offered were mitigated somewhat by the return of state banking.5 There were two major defects remaining in the banking system in the post Civil War era despite the mild success of the National Banking Acts. The first was the inelastic currency problem. The amount of currency which a national bank could have circulating was based on the market value of the Treasury securities it had deposited with the Comptroller of the Currency, not the par value of the bonds. If prices in the Treasury bond market declined substantially, then the national banks had to reduce the amount of currency they had in circulation. This could be done be refusing new loans or, in a more draconian way, by calling-in loans already outstanding. In either case, the effect on the money supply is a restrictive one. Consequently, the size of the money supply was tied more closely to the performance of the bond market rather than needs of the economy.5 Another closely related defect was the liquidity problem. Small rural banks often kept deposits at larger urban banks. The liquidity needs of the rural banks were driven by the liquidity demands of its primary customer, the farmers. In the planting season the was a high demand for currency by farmers so they could make their purchases of farming implements, whereas in harvest season there was an increase in cash deposits as farmers sold their crops. Consequently, the rural banks would take deposits from the urban banks in the spring to meet farmers� withdrawal demands and deposit the additional liquidity in the autumn. Larger urban banks could anticipate this seasonal demand and prepare for it most of the time. However, in 1873, 1884, 1893, and 1907 this reserve pyramid precipitated a financial crisis.5 When national banks experienced a drain on their reserves as rural banks made deposit withdrawals, new reserves had to be acquired in accordance with the federal law. A national bank could do this by selling bonds and stocks, by borrowing from a clearinghouse, or by calling-in a few loans. As long as only a few national banks at a time tried to do this, liquidity was easily supplied to the needy banks. However, an attempt en masse to sell bonds or stocks caused a market crash, which in turn forced national banks to call in loans to comply with Treasury regulations. Many businesses, farmers, or households who had these loans were unable to pay on demand and were forced into bankruptcy. The recessionary vortex became apparent. Frightened by the specter of losing their deposits, in each episode the public stormed any bank rumored, true or not, to be in financial straights. Anyone unable to withdraw their deposits before the bank�s till ran dry lost their savings or later received only pennies on the dollar. Private deposit insurance was scant and unreliable. Federal deposit insurance was non-existent.5 The 1907 Banking Panic The 1907 crisis, also called the Wall Street Panic, was especially severe. The Panic caused what was at that time the worst economic depression in the country�s history. It appears to have begun with a stock market crash brought about by a combination of a modest speculative bubble, the liquidity problem, and reserve pyramiding. Centered on New York City, the scale of the crisis reached a proportion so great that banks across the country nearly suspended all withdrawals -- a kind of self-imposed bank holiday. Several long-standing New York banks fell. The unemployment rate reached 20 percent at the peak of the crisis. Millions lost their deposits as thousands of banks collapsed. The crisis was terminated when J.P. Morgan, a man of sometimes suspicious business tactics and phenomenal wealth, personally made temporary loans to key New York banks and other financial institutions to help them weather the storm. He also made an appeal to the clergy of New York to employ their Sunday sermons to calm the public�s fears. Morgan�s emergency injection of liquidity into the banking system undoubtedly prevented an already bad situation from getting still worse. Although private clearinghouses were able to supply adequate temporary liquidity for their members, only a small portion of banks were members of such organizations. What would happen if there were no J.P. Morgan around during the next financial crisis? Just how bad could things really get? There began to emerge both on Wall Street and in Washington a consensus for a kind of institutionalized J.P. Morgan, that is, a public institution that could provide emergency liquidity to the banking system to prevent such panics from starting. The final result of the Panic of 1907 would be the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 Following the near catastrophic financial disaster of 1907, the movement for banking reform picked up steam among Wall Street bankers, Republicans, and eastern Democrats. However, much of the country was still distrustful of bankers and of banking in general, especially after 1907. After two decades of minority status, Democrats regained control of Congress in 1910 and were able to block several Republican attempts at reform, even though they recognized the need for some kind of currency and banking changes. In 1912 Woodrow Wilson won the Democratic party�s nomination for President, and in his populist-friendly acceptance speech he warned against the "money trusts," and advised that "a concentration of the control of credit ... may at any time become infinitely dangerous to free enterprise."3 Also in 1910, Senator Nelson Aldrich, Frank Vanderlip of National City (today know as Citibank), Henry Davison of Morgan Bank, and Paul Warburg of the Kuhn, Loeb Investment House met secretly at Jeckyll Island, a resort island off the coast of Georgia, to discuss and formulate banking reform, including plans for a form of central banking. The meeting was held in secret because the participants knew that any plan they generated would be rejected automatically in the House of Representatives if it were associated with Wall Street. Because it was secret and because it involved Wall Street, the Jekyll Island affair has always been a favorite source of conspiracy theories. However, the movement toward significant banking and monetary reform was well-known.3 It is hardly surprising that given the real possibility of substantial reform, the banking industry would want some sort of input into the nature of the reforms. The Aldrich Plan which the secret meeting produced was even defeated in the House, so even if the Jekyll Island affair was a genuine conspiracy, it clearly failed. The Aldrich Plan called for a system of fifteen regional central banks, called National Reserve Associations, whose actions would be coordinated by a national board of commercial bankers. The Reserve Association would make emergency loans to member banks, create money to provide an elastic currency that could be exchanged equally for demand deposits, and would act as a fiscal agent for the federal government. Although it was defeated, the Aldrich Plan served as an outline for the bill that eventually was adopted. 5 The problem with the Aldrich Plan was that the regional banks would be controlled individually and nationally by bankers, a prospect that did not sit well with the populist Democratic party or with Wilson. As the debate began to take shape in the spring of 1913, Congressman Arsene Pujo provided good evidence that the nation�s credit markets were under the tight control of a handful of banks � the "money trusts" against which Wilson warned.1 Wilson and the Democrats wanted a reform measure which would decentralize control away from the money trusts. The legislation that eventually emerged was the Federal Reserve Act, also known at the time as the Currency Bill, or the Owen-Glass Act. The bill called for a system of eight to twelve mostly autonomous regional Reserve Banks that would be owned by the banks in their region and whose actions would be coordinated by a Federal Reserve Board appointed by the President. The Board�s members originally included the Secretary of the Treasury, the Comptroller of the Currency, and other officials appointed by the President to represent public interests. The proposed Federal Reserve System would therefore be privately owned, but publicly controlled. Wilson signed the bill on December 23, 1913 and the Federal Reserve System was born.6 Conspiracy theorists have long viewed the Federal Reserve Act as a means of giving control of the banking system to the money trusts, when in reality the intent and effect was to wrestle control away from them. History clearly demonstrates that in the decades prior to the Federal Reserve Act the decisions of a few large New York banks had, at times, enormous repercussions for banks throughout the country and the economy in general. Following the return to central banking, at least some measure of control was removed from them and placed with the Federal Reserve. References: 1. Davidson, James West, Mark A. Lytle, et al, (1998), Nation of Nations, New York: McGraw-Hill. 2. Galbraith, John K. (1995), Money: Whence it Came, Where it Went, Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 3. Greider, William (1987), Secrets of the Temple, New York: Simon & Schuster. 4. Griffin, G. Edward (1995), The Creature from Jekyll Island, Appleton: American Opinion Publishing, Inc. 5. Kidwell, David S. and Richard Peterson (1997), Financial Institutions, Markets, and Money, 6th edition, Fort Worth: Dryden Press. 6. "Wilson Signs the Currency Bill," New York Times, pages 1-2, December 24, 1913. Ok once again ... I've explained exactly how ownership of the Fed is structured, EXACTLY how it has been audited by both congress and the GAO, and included a link to a few of the tens of hundreds of audits that have been conducted ... http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...d=&pagenumber=1 From that thread: While the Federal Reserve Banking system is considered an independant central bank, it's actions are audited by the GAO and specifically, the Senate banking committee has oversight over the Federal Reserve Board, the Federal Advisory Council, the Federal Open Market Committee, and Federal Reserve banks and their branches should it feel that the Federal Reserve system's actions are not in line with its goals outlined by its charter. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdque...y:@@@L&summ2=m& . . . The Importance of the Federal Reserve Executive Summary The Federal Reserve � our Central Bank � is one of the country's most powerful economic institutions. The Federal Reserve is relevant for Congress not only because the Constitution gives monetary powers to Congress but also because Congress created the Fed and, therefore, has critically important responsibilities for Federal Reserve oversight. This paper provides a brief overview of what Members of Congress should know about the Federal Reserve. It is intended to lay the groundwork for several subsequent papers surrounding issues related to congressional oversight of Federal Reserve monetary policy and the goal of price stability. Congressional oversight of the Federal Reserve and monetary policy is important because: Monetary policy can dominate fiscal policy in certain circumstances. Inflation is determined by monetary policy. The Federal Reserve influences interest rates. The Federal Reserve stabilizes the financial system. This paper briefly summarizes the structure and operating procedures of the Federal Reserve and comments on the significance of congressional oversight. The Importance of the Federal Reserve Introduction Although the Federal Reserve�our Central Bank (or monetary authority)�is one of the country's most powerful economic institutions, it is also one of the most misunderstood. For Congress, the Federal Reserve is relevant because (1) the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 8) explicitly gives Congress the power over money and the regulation of its value and (2) this responsibility was delegated by Congress to the Federal Reserve; the Federal Reserve was created by an act of Congress. Accordingly, Congress has important responsibilities for overseeing the Federal Reserve and monetary policy. This paper provides a brief overview of what (and why) Congress should know about the Federal Reserve. A broad-brush overview, it is intended to lay the groundwork for several subsequent papers addressing issues related to congressional oversight of Federal Reserve monetary policy and the goal of price stability. Our Central Bank: The Federal Reserve As the Nation's Central Bank, the Federal Reserve is granted special privileges and so assumes the responsibilities and characteristics of such a bank. It monopolizes the issuance of paper money, serves as banker for both the government and commercial banks, and acts as lender of last resort. The latter, in turn, calls for bank regulatory responsibilities. Since Federal Reserve operations work to centralize reserves (Federal Reserve notes and deposits form a large portion of bank reserves), they entail responsibility for reserve management and hence monetary policy. Two critically important macroeconomic functions of the Central Bank, therefore, are the maintenance and achievement of price and financial system stability (i.e., stable monetary policy and the provision of lender-of-last-resort services). Why Federal Reserve Functions are Important The importance of congressional oversight of the Federal Reserve cannot be overemphasized. These functions are important, for example, because they imply that the Federal Reserve controls and hence is responsible for the management of total spending or aggregate demand as well as inflation. In carrying out its monetary policy management (via manipulating reserves), the Federal Reserve influences interest rates�especially short-term rates�as well as foreign exchange rates and other financial market prices. And in times of financial crisis, the Federal Reserve's lender-of-last-resort function stabilizes the entire financial system. The significance of these important considerations is briefly summarized in turn. Management of Aggregate Demand: Monetary Policy Dominates Fiscal Policy. Most economists recognize that total spending or aggregate demand is determined more by monetary policy than by fiscal policy. In other words, if Congress passes tax or spending legislation intended to affect total spending or aggregate demand, these effects can be fully offset or outweighed by changes in monetary policy. Indeed, accurate counter-cyclical fiscal policy�altering budget deficits to manage economic activity or aggregate demand�is now seen as neither possible nor desirable. Economists no longer agree on even the direction of the economic effects of changing budget deficits,[1] yet all agree that changes in monetary policy do have predictable and potent effects on aggregate demand and economic activity. This implies that changes in monetary policy are often a major factor in movements of the business cycle; many booms and recessions are directly related to changes in monetary policy. Conversely, stable economic activity is often the result of appropriate, stable monetary policy. For example, in recent years the Federal Reserve deserves credit for instituting a restrained, non-inflationary policy, which not only has helped to stabilize the economic cycle but has helped to stabilize most financial markets as well. Inflation is Determined by Monetary Policy. Federal Reserve monetary policy is also the key determinant of inflation. It is well known that, among other economic effects, inflation can adversely affect savings, distort investment decisions, and be used by government to enhance its tax revenue and reduce its real debt. Inflation works to distort the signals of the price system, the signaling mechanism of a free market economy. Partly for this reason, recent research has shown that higher inflation is associated with lower economic growth. Accordingly, the only lasting contribution monetary policy can make toward fostering long-term economic growth is to promote price stability. Consequently, there is a growing consensus among experts that price stability should be the key objective of monetary policy. Congress can, of course, mandate this objective to the Federal Reserve. Interest Rates Are Influenced by the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve also influences interest rates which affect key interest-rate sensitive sectors of the economy such as housing, autos, and investment. More specifically, the Federal Reserve influences interest rates by manipulating reserves. Short-term rates are more directly influenced by Federal policy because its reserve operations involve purchases and sales of short-term government securities which influence bank reserves. Nonetheless, long-term rates are also influenced by monetary policy. Among other influences, for example, long-term rates are affected by changes in inflationary expectations as well as expectations of Fed policy. Nonetheless, the only way monetary policy can sustain lower long-term rates is to promote price stability, thereby removing the influence of both inflationary expectations as well as uncertainty premiums. Certainly, Congress has reason to ensure the provision of lower long-term rates in this way. The Federal Reserve is the Lender of Last Resort. During financial crises, provision of lender-of-last-resort services can stabilize the financial system. The Central Bank, being the ultimate supplier of system-wide reserves, can satisfy sharp increases in reserve or liquidity demand, thereby preventing systemic liquidity shortages and stabilizing the financial system. Failure to provide this function as, for example, occurred in the Great Depression of the 1930s, can be disastrous. On the other hand, liquidity provision prevented any serious financial system fallout from the sharp 1987 stock market crash and 1989 stock market decline. The Federal Reserve (and by inference the Congress) has responsibility to ensure that lender-of-last-resort safeguards are adequate and in place in case of unforseen financial shocks. STRUCTURE The Federal Reserve's organizational structure is unusual, some would say even Byzantine. It is a Federal system made up of (1) a central government agency, the Board of Governors in Washington, D.C., (2) 12 regional banks located in major U.S. cities, and (3) a monetary policy decision-making unit, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), composed of representatives from both the Board and banks. The Board of Governors (BOG). The BOG was established as a Federal agency. It is composed of seven Governors appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate to staggered 14-year terms. A Chairman (and Vice Chairman) are also appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, for four-year terms. The Board of Governors and its staff of about 1,700 are located in Washington, D.C. Twelve Federal Reserve Banks. Twelve Federal Reserve Banks serve as the operating arm of the Federal Reserve system; they perform a number of functions such as operating a nationwide payment system, supervising certain financial institutions, distributing the nation's currency and coin, and serving as a banker for commercial banks and the U.S. Treasury. Each bank has a President nominated by its board of directors and approved by the Board of Governors. The New York Bank is clearly "the first among equals" since it not only sits in the world's financial center but serves as the Federal Open Market Committee's operating arm, conducting open market operations and foreign exchange intervention. Congress chartered these banks and, consequently, has oversight responsibilities for them. Federal Open Market Committee. The FOMC, the Federal Reserve's key monetary policy decision-making unit, formally meets eight times a year in Washington, D.C.[3] It oversees open-market operations, the principal tool of monetary policy which influences short-term interest rates and determines reserve and monetary growth. It also directs foreign exchange market operations of the Federal Reserve System. The FOMC is made up of the seven Board Members and five of the 12 Reserve Bank presidents.[4] These presidents bring "grass roots" information to the meetings and, historically, have had relatively conservative voting records due in part to their insulation from political pressures. Notably, the structure described here was designed by Congress and therefore can be changed by Congress. POLICY OPERATIONS The Federal Reserve conducts monetary policy principally using open-market operations (purchases/sales of securities) to alter bank reserves and influence short-term interest rates, but it also can employ the discount rate and changes in reserve requirements as policy tools. In so doing, the Federal Reserve uses the Fed funds rate as its key policy instrument. Movements in this rate (relative to other rates) in turn influence a wide array of financial and economic variables with differing time lags. These movements, for example, influence financial market variables (such as other interest rates, foreign exchange rates, commodity prices, and yield spreads), monetary and credit aggregates, measures of economic and business activity, and eventually broad measures of inflation. Because of the long time lags involved between adjustments to Federal Reserve instruments and ultimate policy goals, monetary policy makers look for those variables that are both reliably influenced by Fed policy moves and in turn predictably related to subsequent movements in policy goals; i.e., they look for reliable intermediate guides to policy. Over the years, controversies about monetary policy have often related to debates over which variables best serve as intermediate policy guides or targets. In the past, for example, Keynesian economists prescribed target variables such as unemployment or interest rates whereas monetarist economists prescribed monetary aggregates as targets. Both of these types of targets, however, have proven unreliable. Currently, the Federal Reserve has no single explicit intermediate policy target. Rather, it uses an eclectic approach, but undoubtedly has paid more attention to movements in financial market variables than previously was the case. CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT OF MONETARY POLICY Detailed knowledge of the intricacies and fine points of monetary policy operations, however, is not necessary for successful congressional oversight. Rather, the keys for Congress are to clearly establish a viable objective for the Federal Reserve and to ensure the Central Bank is fully accountable for achieving this goal. This can be fostered by establishing appropriate incentives for monetary policy makers as well as mandating enhanced reporting and disclosure requirements related to progress in achieving stated objectives. Oversight, therefore, should promote policy transparency which can help to promote the credibility of a given monetary policy. Notably, congressional oversight of the Federal Reserve need not imply increased political influence on monetary policy, especially if explicit, objective policy goals such as price stability are established for the Central Bank. Such oversight can actually work to minimize political influence by ensuring Executive Branch sway over monetary policy reflecting their appointments . . . etc., etc., etc., I can get into stocks issued by the Fed, how profits are returned to the Treasury department ... I mean where do you want to go? |
I'm a huge fan of the fed. Check out how they have rewarded retirees over the past few years. Just look at that purchasing power soar!
US Dollar Index:
oh wait, nvm.
Aside from the dollar being worth shit, retirees can now only get around 2% interest on their savings...with an inflation rate at least double that.
Wonderful. Print more paper please.
edit: I confused this documentary with Aaron Russo's Freedom to Fascism. After skimming through it, I see Zeitgeist didn't have much info on the fed at all.. For a much more in depth look at the Fed, this is the place to go:
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Capitalizt I'm a huge fan of the fed. Check out how they have rewarded retirees over the past few years. Just look at that purchasing power soar: oh wait, nvm. Aside from the dollar being worth shit, retirees can now only get around 2% interest on their savings...with an inflation rate at least double that. Wonderful. Print more paper please. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Capitalizt I'm a huge fan of the fed. Check out how they have rewarded retirees over the past few years. Just look at that purchasing power soar! US Dollar Index: oh wait, nvm. Aside from the dollar being worth shit, retirees can now only get around 2% interest on their savings...with an inflation rate at least double that. Wonderful. Print more paper please. edit: I confused this documentary with Aaron Russo's Freedom to Fascism. After skimming through it, I see Zeitgeist didn't have much info on the fed at all.. For a much more in depth look at the Fed, this is the place to go: |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN until you address occrider's complete and utter destruction of your arguments concerning the federal reserve your opinion is meaningless to me. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN I would've thought a couple of students of economics (like you two) would have a broader understanding of the limitations on the central bank in terms of "controlling" the nature of the free economy? |
oh no! not the "military industrial complex" again! whatever shall we do!? everyone - run for your lives! the boogieman is coming for you!!! 
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN oh no! not the "military industrial complex" again! whatever shall we do!? everyone - run for your lives! the boogieman is coming for you!!! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by colonelcrisp do you give a rat's ass? fixed, but it is still gramatically incorrect.... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by stevieboy32808 Grammatically |
AKA "the truth" ??
here is a short compilation of the "truths" found in the first part of the "documentary".
| quote: |
This is a response to the Zeitgeist movie intro posted in this group and the debate that followed. I promised to begin making a list of all of the factual inaccuracies, and as the regulars know, while I might be annoying and sophomoric at times, when I promise something, I'm good on it. This is all I could handle for one evening...24 erros in a span of 3 minutes (approx. one error every 7.6 seconds) during part 1 of a 90+ minute movie. Enjoy. I will cite all my sources when I get done...which will be another day. I gave time references for each error, but make sure you use the timing from the link I provided. Zeitgeist Factual Review 1. �This is the cross of the Zodiac�, 1:38. It�s actually the Greek Zodiac Wheel, but admittedly a minor error. Nonetheless, it implies a word that makes it seem more related to Christianity. 2. �Horus�the Solar Messiah�, 2:57. The Ancient Egyptians did not have the word or concept of a Savior or Messiah�the movie simply adds that word on for later relationship to Jesus. 3. �Metaphorically speaking, every morning Horus would win the battle against Set, while in the evening, Set would conquer Horus and send him into the underworld.� 3:10. This is not Ancient Egyptian mythology, but rather the product of Zeitgeist�s writers. Horus and Set were enemies, but there was no myth stating their battles were the daily cause of daylight and nighttime. �Metaphorically speaking� is the very nice way of saying this. 4. �Horus was born on December 25th�� 3:33. Incorrect. Horus� birth was during the Egyptian month of �Khoiak�, which falls in what is now October and November. 5. ��of the virgin Isis Mary�� 3:36. Incorrect on both the name and her virginity status. In truth, Horus was born to Isis (the �Mary� seems to be added by Zeitgeist writers to make it sound like Jesus� birth), the widow of Osiris. She used her deceased husband�s phallus and sperm to conceive Horus, but there is absolutely nothing about her being a virgin; her formerly being married to Osiris shows otherwise. 6. ��three kings followed to adorn the newborn Savior� 3:42. There is no evidence in any of the birth stories I�ve found for any kings visiting or adorning the child; in fact, Horus is born as a falcon and flies away. As we all know, it�s hard to catch a falcon to adorn it. It�s also worthy to point out�again�that the concept of a �Savior� was not part of Egyptian Mythology. 7. ��at the age of 12 he was a prodigal child teacher�� 3:47. He was quite a kid but I have found nothing about Horus as a �teacher� of anything, let alone at age 12. 8. ��at the age of 30 he was baptized�� 3:50. The Egyptians did not �Baptise� anyone. That term is obviously Christian and it�s application to Egyptian mythology is grossly misled. All of the information I can find about this also cites some of the above facts I�ve debunked as true, and I�ve found nothing to indicate Horus was dunked in water of any kind from any actual reputable source. 9. ��Horus had 12 disciples��3:53. Horus had four disciples/ followers, not 12. They were called the �Heru-Shemsu� if you want to look it up. 10. ��(Horus) walked on water�� 3:57. Horus never walked on water. This appears to be nothing short of a Zeitgeist made piece of fiction. 11-15.��known by many�names, such as �The Truth�, �The Light�, �God�s Anointed Son�, �The Good Shepherd�, �The Lamb of God�,�� 4:03. There is nothing in support of this anywhere. The Egyptians did not even have a �God� in the sense of a single god known by that title. 16. ��Horus was crucified�� 4:09. There was no such thing in Ancient Egypt. The civilization pre-dates crucifixion by over 1,500 years. 17. ��buried for 3 days and thus resurrected�� 4:11. Once again, there is no evidence for this claim. His father, Osiris, is resurrected by Horus� actions in some myths, but Horus himself does not undergo this. Again, all online sources that support the Zeitgeist seem to have gotten their information from the movie. 18-19. ��Attis, born of a virgin (Nana) on December 25th�� 4:28. Nana is a nymph and conceives children by holding an acorn to her breast, and there is nothing indicating it happened on December 25th. Attis is associated with springtime, not the winter or the solstice. 20. ��(Attis is) crucified�� 4:30. Attis castrates himself under a pine tree; he is not nailed to a piece of a tree by other people like Jesus was. 21. ��(Attis is) resurrected�� 4:31. Attis never comes back to life. Requests by others to resurrect him are actually denied; Attis eventually becomes a pine tree. Zeitgeist fabricated this �fact� apparently�seems to be a pattern emerging� 22. ��(Attis is) placed in a tomb�� 4:31. See above�there is no tomb for poor Attis. 23. �Krishna, born of a virgin�� 4:37. Krishna�s parents had seven children before Krishna. They apparently were fond of intercourse, actually. 24. ��Star in the East�� 4:40. Again, there is absolutely nothing to this anywhere. Appears to be Zeitgeist nonsense again. 25. ��Dionysus of Greece, born of a virgin�� 4:50. Zeus impregnates either a mortal woman (Semele), or Persephone; either way, he impregnates them with his god stick, not a divine touch. Virgin birth was never an element of Dionysus. 26. ��on December 25th�� 4:52. There is nothing anywhere in the Dionysus myth mentioning this day, the winter solstice, or a birthday of any kind. Like Attis, Dionysus is associated with spring, not winter. 27. ��travelling teacher�� 4:53. Dionysus did travel, but virtually all of his �teaching� was about wine making and he taught nothing spiritual. 28. ��such as turning water into wine�� 4:55. One of my law professors once told me, �lawyers don�t lie, they interpret the truth.� This movie is about two steps closer to lying than a lawyer apparently. Dionysus was the god of wine and gave people the power to turn things they touched into wine, and he also filled empty vessels with it. Oddly enough, none of these stories contains him or anyone with his powers turning water into wine. 28-30. ��he was referred to as the �King of Kings�, �God�s only begotten Son�, �The Alpha and Omega��� 5:00. All false, of course. Dionysus was never the highest ranking god, never a king, had many, many half siblings (Zeus got around), and had a very well defined beginning. 31. ��Mithra, born of a virgin�� 5:07. Mithra actually sprang out of a rock in some traditions and ancient artworks, and none of the other myths provide any details of birth. 32. ��he had twelve disciples�� 5:09. Mithra was occasionally shown surrounded by the twelve signs of the Zodiac, which, as one might guess, are not actually disciples. 33-34. ��and upon his death was buried for three days and thus resurrected�� 5:11. Mithra never actually dies in any myth, and so was also never buried. The living don�t need resurrections either. 35-37. ��called �The Way�, �The Truth�, �The Light��� 5:16. He was called �the warrior angel of light� in Iran, but that�s actually a completely different Mithra from the Roman one pictured in the movie and referenced with the twelve signs of the Zodiac. Go figure. 38-40+. ��the fact of the matter is there are different Saviors from different periods from all over the world which subscribe to these general characteristics�� 5:25 A list of about 20 ancient gods are presented, some of which I can�t even find. The ones I know off of the top of my head are ridiculous to place in such a category�and some are even synonymous with before presented gods. Osiris of Egypt? Zoroaster from Iran? Thor? Quexalcote (who is from the New World and would have been completely unknown to the Jews of 20 CE)? They bare virtually nothing in common with Jesus (that IS what this is going for after all), and are not �saviors�. Remember that it is a Christian word and concept. Assigning this section as 3 errors is letting the movie off very easy. 41. ��let�s examine the most recent of the solar messiahs�� 5:48. This is a misleading/ wrong statement for a number of reasons. Jesus is the only �Messiah�, to start with, and if the previous gods are supposed to be other solar messiahs, then this is still wrong, since some of them actually are more recent than Jesus. ***42. �Jesus Christ�was born on December 25th��*** 5: 53 *This is perhaps the biggest error in the entire section 1, and undermines the next fifteen minutes as completely moot.* The Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John- the books that are supposed to be a historical reflection of Jesus and contain his birth story(s) ) were written down between 58 and 110 CE, with John being the last. The celebration of Christ�s birth as December 25th is not within the Gospels, and the date actually appears nowhere within them with reference to anything. Originally, the day appointed to mark Jesus� birth was March 25th, the start of spring, and the same day the early Christians believed Jesus was crucified (they believed prophets died on their birthdays, as they were set to live a specific number of years). It was not until the year 354 CE, 240+ years after the last pen drop of the Book of John was finished, that �Christmas� was created and placed on December 25th. The primary reason for this day was to replace old Roman Pagan solstice festivals with a Christian one. Furthermore, the evidence within the Gospels themselves virtually forces Jesus to be a spring birth (and adds solidity to March 25th being more accurate). The Palestinian winters are quite cold, and shepherds would not have been tending their flocks in the fields in late December, as the lambs would die of hypothermia. Basing Jesus� birth story on the Astrology of December 25th is ridiculous and 101% baseless. If you don�t understand why, here�s an easy analogy: I write a book about a hero named Bob tomorrow, and set the story in the summer of 2008. In the year 2307, people like my story about Bob so much that they make a holiday for Bob, Bobmas, and assign it to November 16th. In the year 2960, some historians reconstruct my story about Bob, and publish a paper showing how I wrote the story based upon the Astrology of November 16th, though my book neither took place on that date, nor did I even mention it. It�s tantamount to trying to explain the 4th Season of �Seinfeld� based upon the movement of a comet. It�s just loony and makes no sense when you actually look at the facts. 43. ��The star in the East is Sirius, which, on December 24th, aligns with�Orion�s Belt�� 6:45. Sirius is well away from Orion�s belt and does not move in the night sky with relation to other stars; no stars do. Only planets move in relation to the stars (the stars do move, technically, but it takes many hundreds of years before even slight changes can be noticed). 44. �The three brightest stars are called today what they were called in Ancient times- the �Three Kings��� 6:52. Yes, they were called that�in South Africa. In Greece, Rome, and the Middle East, they were Orion�s belt. The Sahara Desert kept the folklore of South Africa down there quite effectively, and the �The Kings� reference does not begin showing up in Aramaic Texts until 300 CE. 45. ��all point to where the sun rises on December 25th�in order to locate the sunrise; the birth of the son�� 7:07. This is incredibly misleading. All stars move east to west like the sun, and any set of stars in the sky could have been picked as �pointing back to the sunrise�. Next, the implied connection between �sun� and �son� is a play on words in English; no one spoke English when all of these events took place, obviously. 46. ��This is why other virgin mothers, like (Myrra�s and Buddha�s mother�s) names start with an �M��� 7:32 Buddha was born to Maya, who had been married for 20 years before his birth. There is no indication of her being a virgin in any Buddhist traditions. In addition, the only sites I can find claiming Myrra had anything to do with virgin birth are �Greatest Story Ever Told� sites that read virtually identically to the Zeitgeist. Based upon the Zeitgeist�s merits, I can say that I would be highly skeptical of those sources. 47. ��Bethlehem is thus a reference to a place in the sky, not on earth�� 7:56. This statement is based upon the contellation Virgo�s being called �The House of Bread�, and Bethlehem literally translating in Hebrew to �House of Bread�. However, these two things were independently named in different languages. The Zeitgeist implies Bethlehem took it�s name from the Constellation�the people that still live there might tell the writers it�s the opposite. Point: two places with a common name =/= direct associations. 48. �The sun died on a cross (the �Southern Cross Contellation�), was dead for three days (December 22-24 the sun is at its lowest), only to be born again on December 25th�� 9:10. That�s fine and dandy, but this is a combination of two inaccuracies already pointed out; the �sun� and �son� were not word-playable words back then, and Jesus WAS NOT born on December 25th. All of this astrology explaining this cycle is meaningless and implies something that is wholly inaccurate; see fact error 42. 49-51. ��this is why Jesus and other sun gods share the crucifixion, three day death, and resurrection�� 9:18. None of the gods pictured or previously talked about were crucified, dead for three days, or resurrected. This is redundant, yes, but it�s pissing me off and if they want to use bad information more than once, I�ll write it down more than once. 52. ��it is a Pagan adaptation of the cross of the Zodiac�� 10:47. The Pagan Zodiac is balanced, with all four parts of the �cross� equal in length. The Christian cross is not balanced, but resembles the letter �t�. Forget that crucifixion on a cross was the method of execution by the Romans too� 53. �crown of thorns, or sunrays�� 11:32. I need something behind this. It�s a matter of conjecture, but not one I can find supported anywhere outside of the Zeitgeist. bibliography 1. http://www.spirithistory.com/kgraves.html 2. http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/sbe19/sbe1903.htm 3. http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/btg/btg98.htm 4. http://www.mahidol.ac.th/budsir/life_10.htm 5. http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/tut/tut05.htm 6. http://www.pantheon.org/articles/h/hathor.html 7. http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/leg/leg08.htm 8. http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/eml/eml05.htm 9. http://www.bartleby.com/65/zo/Zoroaste.html 10. http://www.avesta.org/znames.htm 11. http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Religi...aster_name.htm 12. http://www.pantheon.org/articles/h/haoma.html 13. http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Mithraism 14. http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Mithras 15. http://www.reference.com/browse/columbia/Attis 16. http://www.pantheon.org/articles/g/great_mother.html 17. http://www.pantheon.org/articles/d/dionysus.html 18. http://www.reference.com/browse/columbia/Semele 19. http://www.pantheon.org/articles/d/dionysus.html 20. http://www.reference.com/browse/columbia/Quetzalc I will do bibliographies on my world religion textbooks if you want (I used 4 of them). In addition, I always checked yahoo and/or google searches to see if my base information was backed up, which it was. I also checked Wikipedia to verify most of my information...I always double check the wiki, of course, but it too always matched my textbooks and reputable websites. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=110120 |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.