TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- The Secret Criminal Society of the Federal Reserve (Part II)
Pages (12): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 »

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN youre just another person that doesn't understand what the fed does or how it works. i suggest you go to your local university and enrol in economics 101, then we'll talk. every single country worth noting has a central bank. do the math

There are more than 100 of them...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_central_banks

Here are their websites...

http://www.bis.org/cbanks.htm

The only countries without a central bank are Andorra and Monaco.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN youre just another person that doesn't understand what the fed does or how it works. i suggest you go to your local university and enrol in economics 101, then we'll talk. every single country worth noting has a central bank. do the math

Yeah, printing money off with nothing to back it but more money, fuck-ing brilliant. Tell me, how you expect a debt free society with something like the Central Bank?

You're just another sheep stuck in a pen with two exits open.

Why don't you enroll in some English, fuckface?

Three cheers for corporate/fachismo douchebags ruling the world through monetary control.

No cheers, however, for the corporate-fascist apologists.

quote:

Originally posted by {b.s.e.} Yeah, printing money off with nothing to back it but more money, fuck-ing brilliant. Tell me, how you expect a debt free society with something like the Central Bank?

fucking hell. do you guys ever get sick of reposting the same shit we've already dealt with over and over? there is nothing wrong with fiat money or debt you clown. the central bank also has nothing to do with the levels of debt that people choose to shoulder.

explain to me how someone buys a house without access to evil debt?

quote:

Originally posted by {b.s.e.} You're just another sheep stuck in a pen with two exits open.

coming from someone that believes anything they see/read on the internet, your criticism is laughable.

central banks and fiat money are superior to no central bank and a gold standard. that's just economic fact. if your government is abusing the fiat system, the problem is with your government, not fiat money.

keep at it internet detective. the only people youre fooling are the uneducated.

Internet idiocy: the latest pandemic
By: Taylor Kessinger


To be ignorant has always been easy: Simply sit back in your recliner and watch Fox News.

But to be genuinely misinformed has become exponentially easier with the rise of the Internet, as lies and half-truths gush forth through its twisted web of data-tubes.

In the pre-Web age, publishing something which was patently false required a fair bit of money or, at the very least, access to some dumb schmuck who was willing to publish your ideas for you, and giving legitimacy to ill-conceived or outright moronic views required hours and hours of cherry-picking quotes and struggling to find sources that agreed with you.

The electronic age has largely done away with this demand. Now, disseminating information requires money for bandwidth, hosting and little else other than time.

As a kid, I specifically remember being told not to believe everything I read on the Internet. But humans have an odd reaction to claptrap: Most of us simply go along with whatever we hear as long as it comes from a seeming authority. Our world revolves around the Internet so much that even YouTube movies, blog posts and forum rants appear authoritative.

As far as Internet bullshit goes, nothing beats "Zeitgeist: The Movie." Released on Google Video, the film is broken up into three parts which claim, respectively, that Jesus was nothing more than a pagan god and all of Christianity is really based on astrology; that the 9/11 "truth" movement is correct; and that the Federal Reserve is the product of a cabal of international bankers whose ultimate goal is to rule over all humanity with an iron fist. This trio of bizarre theories is touted by a legion of Internet armchair experts, and it currently has a 4.5 rating on Google Video with more than 23,000 votes.

None of these ideas are new; in particular, the 9/11 Truth Movement is itself a product of the Internet. But becoming familiar with, for example, the Jesus-myth hypothesis once required hours of poring through texts so poorly written that the falsity of their content was manifestly obvious. Watch the movie, though, and you'll be so bombarded with cool sound bites, slick images and video clips and the assertive voice of a dogmatic narrator that you, too, might join the ranks of the movie's supporters.

Miscreants like creationists, white nationalists, Ron Paulogists and conspiracy theorists all depend on this air of legitimacy to convince others of their views. Witty sayings, fear tactics and a cool, assertive air all enable them to convince the unwitting public of their points.

As yet another example, consider the Internet campaign which insists that "Black Hussein Osama" is really a Muslim operative who wants to bring down the United States from the inside out. They've cleverly mined quotes and images to make it appear as though Barack Obama disrespects our flag and, with it, our country.

There is no shortage of information which refutes this viewpoint. But this type of conspiracy relies on two elements common to web surfers: First, they're only willing to check facts at the most superficial level, which usually means they'll read a message or watch a clip just once before forming an opinion and moving on. Second, the honest, savvy users are always drowned out by a sea of morons. Check the comments for YouTube videos of Obama "disrespecting the flag," and you'll see this in action.

To be fair, online databases of information drawn from legitimate print publications have made it much easier to check facts as the Internet has aged - for those of us who care to look. And at the very least, we can rest assured that Internet idiocy isn't all that bad. Gullible fools provide endless entertainment for the rest of us, and campaigns of misinformation haven't had overly hurtful externalities: Even Ron Paul's legion of Internet supporters hasn't catapulted him into winning any states.

The best possible solution to the problem of Internet stupidity is probably the most complicated. We need to ensure that all levels of our society are trained to be at least twice as skeptical in cyberspace as they are in meatspace.

Fortunately, as our generation slowly nears the top of the political food chain, solving Internet problems should become easier and easier as people born and raised on the 'Net acquire critical roles in the legislative process. In the meantime, the best thing we can do is to be careful on our perilous trek through the information superhighway.

http://media.wildcat.arizona.edu/me...c-3171363.shtml

quote:

Originally posted by {b.s.e.} Yeah, printing money off with nothing to back it but more money, fuck-ing brilliant. Tell me, how you expect a debt free society with something like the Central Bank?

Actually, fiat money is backed by something. It's backed by the value of all goods, services, and assets. Inflation results when the money supply is increased faster than the increase in the value of goods, services, and assets.

Also, no society is ever debt free. So the notion of a debt-free society is completely unrealistically utopian.

Question, how would you ensure the stability of the economy and currency?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN youre just another person that doesn't understand what the fed does or how it works. i suggest you go to your local university and enrol in economics 101, then we'll talk. every single country worth noting has a central bank. do the math

PKC, if you enrolled in Economics 101, you should already know that macro-economics didn't exist prior to the Great Depression and the very reason why it arose as a field of study was to explain the phenomenon and why the banks collapsed. Maynard Keynes looked in to the matter to come up with an explanation for what had happened, and it was only after the fact that micro-economics became an academic discipline. Even my macroeconomics text book makes this fact clear. That not exactly a starting point free from bias .

EDIT: Note, Keynes was a British Economist, attempting to explain a crisis in the US, which makes it highly unlikely he had access to all the relevant information for starters. The late 1800's / early 1900's weren't exactly the information age you know .

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Actually, fiat money is backed by something. It's backed by the value of all goods, services, and assets. Inflation results when the money supply is increased faster than the increase in the value of goods, services, and assets. Also, no society is ever debt free. So the notion of a debt-free society is completely unrealistically utopian. Question, how would you ensure the stability of the economy and currency?

Yeah, that's because we all use fiat currency, credit, and interest now so we're naturally going to be in debt. Fractional Reserve banking is a fairly new development in human history... prior to that it the practice it principles are based on was called exactly what it is, usury and extortion.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Yeah, that's because we all use fiat currency, credit, and interest now so we're naturally going to be in debt. Fractional Reserve banking is a fairly new development in human history... prior to that it the practice it principles are based on was called exactly what it is, usury and extortion.

People have been using debt for thousands of years...

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton People have been using debt for thousands of years...

Compound interest and debt? Not exactly, interest... no duh! Most cultures also generally recognized it for what it is, extortion. Now you just have a centralized institutions doing it, and most people are oblivious to it and it's consequences. The Knights Templars were persecuted by the Church for this very reason, they brought the practice to Europe on a large scale.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Compound interest and debt? Not exactly, interest... no duh! Most cultures also generally recognized it for what it is, extortion. Now you just have a centralized institutions doing it, and most people are oblivious to it and it's consequences. The Knights Templars were persecuted by the Church for this very reason, they brought the practice to Europe on a large scale.

By centralized institution, you mean the Federal Reserve, correct? Debt is a product. When you want a product, you must pay for it. When you want debt, you must pay for it; INTEREST. It's only fair.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton By centralized institution, you mean the Federal Reserve, correct? Debt is a product. When you want a product, you must pay for it. When you want debt, you must pay for it; INTEREST. It's only fair.

LOL, debt is not a "product." By centralized institutions, I'm referring to not the Fed specifically, but all central banks. You do know what the word centralized means right ?

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z LOL, debt is not a "product." By centralized institutions, I'm referring to not the Fed specifically, but all central banks. You do know what the word centralized means right ?

debt absolutely is a product - a financial product that bankers were (and some still are) making millions of dollars selling to people and institutions.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 debt absolutely is a product - a financial product that bankers were (and some still are) making millions of dollars selling to people and institutions.

Of course it's a product from that perspective, but it's not a product in the conventional sense at all. It's not like a perishable item like food for example. Or a product like your furniture, car, cds, ipod etc. It bears no resemblance to any other goods that you'd find in a market place or for barter.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z PKC, if you enrolled in Economics 101, you should already know that macro-economics didn't exist prior to the Great Depression and the very reason why it arose as a field of study was to explain the phenomenon and why the banks collapsed. Maynard Keynes looked in to the matter to come up with an explanation for what had happened, and it was only after the fact that micro-economics became an academic discipline. Even my macroeconomics text book makes this fact clear. That not exactly a starting point free from bias .

so what?

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z EDIT: Note, Keynes was a British Economist, attempting to explain a crisis in the US, which makes it highly unlikely he had access to all the relevant information for starters. The late 1800's / early 1900's weren't exactly the information age you know .

you mean the rest of the world, not just the US right?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN so what? you mean the rest of the world, not just the US right?

Did that really go over your head? If that is the case, never mind.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Did that really go over your head? If that is the case, never mind.

No, im simply asking you for clarification.

are you saying that the generally-accepted causes of the depression are wrong? or are you saying that the institutions and understandings that arose from the great depression and/or early banking problems are somehow immoral or unethical or even unnecessary? are you saying that our lessons were learned badly in previous economic crises and that there are no solid grounds for arguing in favour of central banks?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton By centralized institution, you mean the Federal Reserve, correct? Debt is a product. When you want a product, you must pay for it. When you want debt, you must pay for it; INTEREST. It's only fair.

Another thing, I also DO NOT want it, anywhere fucking near me (and no one else should have to bother with it either) but the system we live under makes it virtually unavoidable pragmatically. And no, it's not fair. Making money out of thin air is not wealth anybody earned. That's not work, that taking advantage of your inherited wealth; extorting the general population who would never need to take any loans if it weren't for the economic system we have, interest and debt being the specific. Class wars, those who have an abundance of capital, generally those with inherited wealth, are the only beneficiaries. It doesn't take a genius or a degree, or reading Marx, or anything like that to figure out something that basic.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN No, im simply asking you for clarification. are you saying that the generally-accepted causes of the depression are wrong?

I think they're definitely wrong, or at the very least I see little reason to give unquestionable legitimacy or absolute authority to a non-science who's premises are directly related to the question at hand.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN or are you saying that the institutions and understandings that arose from the great depression and/or early banking problems are somehow immoral or unethical or even unnecessary?

I didn't necessarily call them immoral or unethical, although they probably are and I certainly don't agree with many of the value assumptions made. And yes, I do think central banks, at least the way we know them today, are absolutely unnecessary and counter productive to public / collective interests.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN are you saying that our lessons were learned badly in previous economic crises and that there are no solid grounds for arguing in favour of central banks?

Well, I wasn't really even making a reference to that but no matter how much you'd like to thing of non-sciences as being 'rational' or objective, they absolutely are not. Calculus isn't exactly very sophisticated, and economics doesn't really incorporate much more than that as far as rational and mathematical models go; if I remember correctly, I was 16 and I learned the whole damn thing by myself in 3 months and took the test. You can't really expect me take such a primitive non scientific discipline so seriously, especially when the status quo hasn't really changed since it's inception, which would be based on incomplete and questionable information. That the worst kind of circular logic I've seen in an argument thus far. Not exactly a very convincing:

A -> B, since B is true, A must be true.

Eh, no. That violated a very fundamental principle, and makes the argument completely devoid of logic.

im still confused...

let's forget the marxist twaddle for a minute, we're talking about the real world. if we wanna talk about the evils of capitalism we can always start a new thread and ill be happy to contribute.

BUT...in the real world, could you please explain to me how you believe the economy should be regulated without a central bank?

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Of course it's a product from that perspective, but it's not a product in the conventional sense at all. It's not like a perishable item like food for example. Or a product like your furniture, car, cds, ipod etc. It bears no resemblance to any other goods that you'd find in a market place or for barter.

i think youre confusing bad debt with good debt. good debt has value and is ultimately "perishable". it appreciates in value and can depreciate. and as recently as this year was very tradable among financial markets in the form of mortgage backed securities.

i only learned this a couple years ago trying to get my real estate licence.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo good debt has value

it certainly does! its how im planning to make all my money

moved from the chillout room. because i can't stand that place :)

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN fucking hell. its the same stuff, over and over. to quote maddox 'its like being bukkaked with stupid'.

Ah, yes, you're the sort of bloke who holds a psychopath narcissist in high regard. He's jokes, but no one to quote in a debate.

quote:

no, not necessarily. but it would help you understand how it worked and you wouldn't be posting lies and distortions as you do below. you're understanding is just way WAY off base because you dont balance your sources enough. ..and you don't punctuate your sentences enough. I think what you fail to see is that I understand the Fed. To make sure that I was aware of how it is perceived by sheepish minds are yourself, I read all of Occ's posts in the link you provided; well described and thorough. I also took a second look into the ownership of the Fed (OWNERSHIP. Read: private.) At the very top, the tippy-top, of the iceberg is N.M. Rothschild, BOE. That's significant, whether you'll allow yourself to accept this or not. The Fed is a shotgun wedding between the private and public sector at best. [quote] its not a scam.

Sure it is. And if not by nature of the beast, then they are readily in on financial scams. Example: Barak Obama sued Citibank in 1994 under the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) basically assuring loans to people that could not afford them. Citibank is one of the top 3 shareholders of the Fed, along with BoA and JP Morgan & Chase. Now.. let's look at Barak's top campaign supporters!

Goldman Sachs $748,880
Goldman Sachs is a bank holding company for the Fed. You might remember Goldman Sachs from the 1995 Economic Crisis, when former Co-Chairman Robert Rubin became Treasury Secretary during the Clinton Administration. Subsequently passing a $20B bailout for Mexico, protecting Citicorp's profits, among other corporations.

University of California $625,911
Janet L. Yellen was professor emerita at UoC before becoming president and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. She is a voting member of the Federal Open Market Committee, the group led by Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke that sets the course of monetary policy for the nation.

JPMorgan Chase & Co $493,469
No way! What are all these Fed companies doing on his supporter list?

Harvard University $473,669
Bob Bernanke completed his undergrad summa cum laude at Harvard. Granted, this is a stretch.. albeit just one more connection to the Fed in the top 5 campaign contributors.

Citigroup Inc $467,849

Lo and behold. :P The Fed was pretty kind in bending the Arm's Length rule in 2007.

And now America finds itself in a severe economic crisis, with one of the instigators at the helm? Incredible timing.

quote:

even if that is true, so what?

See above. The Bank of England is at the top of the Fed? Or at least has a hell of a lot to say about what's happening with the direction of the monetary policy.
__edit__
N.M. Rothschild, Bank of England, to be precise. There are a couple of banks touting the Rothschild legacy. It was N.M. Rothschild that said "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes her laws." You never got back to me on that one, when I asked you earlier. Maybe you weren't curious.

quote:

if you want to learn how the fed actually works, here's a thread with all the basic info so, you can either keep making fallacious statements or try and learn something. its your choice.

Granted, I may not have the full, enveloping understanding of the Fed that you boast, but I am not one to miss an obvious connection, or be lied to blatantly and swallow it whole. In past, I have perhaps mislead myself or given second thought to certain points of information, but be assured that I have looked deeper into the subjects that have caused me intellectual grief. I think it's you that needs to take a deeper look into the issues at hand. It does not take a staggering intellect to see that the money-makers in the world are guiding the 'powers that be' or 'that will be'.

quote:

10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists A useful guide by Donna Ferentes 9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's �happened before�.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.

You fool, the Gulf of Tonkin Lie has been disclosed. Same goes for Northwoods. Fact, not speculation or fleeting ideas of Government terror whoring.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident

It is not simply that there is a different story as to what happened; it is that no attack happened that night. [...] In truth, Hanoi's navy was engaged in nothing that night but the salvage of two of the boats damaged on 2 August.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Of course it's a product from that perspective, but it's not a product in the conventional sense at all. It's not like a perishable item like food for example. Or a product like your furniture, car, cds, ipod etc. It bears no resemblance to any other goods that you'd find in a market place or for barter.

that seems like a restrictive and inaccurate definition of product. Is electricity a product? how about internet connection or cable? You can't exactly barter for internet service, and it doesn't really resemble any other product offered in any market.

Re: moved from the chillout room. because i can't stand that place :)

BSE, you keep moving the goalposts. you made 3 very serious errors in your post from the COR and i really dont see the point in continuing the discussion until you retract those fallacious claims.

quote:

Originally posted by {b.s.e.} See above. The Bank of England is at the top of the Fed? Or at least has a hell of a lot to say about what's happening with the direction of the monetary policy.

sorry, that's wrong. here is a list of the 12 banks that make up the fed.

Boston
New York
Philadelphia
Cleveland
Richmond
Atlanta
Chicago
St. Louis
Minneapolis
Kansas City
Dallas
San Francisco

im unclear as to the specific laws that govern it, but my understandind is that foreign banks are not allowed to be part of the fed.

quote:

Originally posted by {b.s.e.} Granted, I may not have the full, enveloping understanding of the Fed that you boast,

i do not, for a second, boast that i have this full, enveloping understanding. my understanding is actually very basic, but that's my whole point. even a basic understanding is enough to know that the conspiracy arguments are wrong in how they present their "facts".

quote:

Originally posted by {b.s.e.} It does not take a staggering intellect to see that the money-makers in the world are guiding the 'powers that be' or 'that will be'.

so, rail against capitalism. dont harp on the federal reserve, because it is the federal reserve's role to shield the citizens from the anarchies of capitalist economy. i can only suggest that you start with the 3 errors identified in your COR post and then go from there. the fed doesn't do what you think it does, that's not my opinion that's just fact. read occrider's posts in THIS THREAD which should answer some of your concerns.

that's all i have to say really. there's only so many times you can have the exact same argument before it gets really boring.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.