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

quote:

This prevailing obscurity must be met with intellectual curiosity and expressed outrage. More of us must shine a light upon this fog of vagueness which encompasses our political and economic institutions. The examples of contradictions are endless and our collective memory is weak. History does repeat itself. We must devise the means to obviate governmental falsehoods. In this regard, the internet can be our salvation. Let the Diogenes amongst us lead the way. The greatest gift we can share with one another is truth, or at least its relentless pursuit. Demystify the layers of doublespeak and deceit with accountability. Question authority often!

That paragraph was the reason why I felt compelled to post that. No matter what the rest of that particular author's message says, that single paragraph encapsulates much of what we should be doing anyhow.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt I didn't expect him to actually read it, but a few days later I got a personal response from him. He was very grateful and promised me he would never give up the fight for liberty. He didn't need to go through the trouble of thanking me personally...but he really wanted to. That shows the type of character he has.

Lol, that used to be my job when I worked on the Hill. Drafting letters and using the autopen.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X Study the history of our central banking system and you'll see that the last central bank that we had was basically run by the same people. Those very same people basically conspired to form a new central bank which is now the Federal Reserve. They met in secrecy and drafted their plans but then publically made it appear as though they opposed them in order to make people think that it was for the good of the country.

Substitute the word "Constitution" every time you write the phrase "central bank" and you get another true story. The fact that they improved upon the old system doesn't really prove anything. The Constitution was written as a second draft of the Articles of Confederation, which had been written by most of the same people. Are you now going to make the argument that the Constitution was conceived as a mechanism for power-grabbing as well?

quote:

Substitute the word "Constitution" every time you write the phrase "central bank" and you get another true story. The fact that they improved upon the old system doesn't really prove anything. The Constitution was written as a second draft of the Articles of Confederation, which had been written by most of the same people. Are you now going to make the argument that the Constitution was conceived as a mechanism for power-grabbing as well?

I think you've taken both out of context. The government improving upon the law of the land, and private bankers meeting to hammer out a plan to control issued currency shouldn't be compared as if they're equal.

and we're all still waiting for krypton's response to occrider.

do these CTers really have a commitment to "the truth" or do they merely enjoy posting their own ideas whilst ignoring any dissenting voices? tsk tsk.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN and we're all still waiting for krypton's response to occrider. do these CTers really have a commitment to "the truth" or do they merely enjoy posting their own ideas whilst ignoring any dissenting voices? tsk tsk.

What, are you waiting for me to copy and paste a book? I told OCC to summarize it or provide a shorter refute of the scenario of Jekyll Island I posted which was much much shorter.

You've managed to remain a sideline cheerleader in this whole debate, so I'de be nice if you could contribute something other than the pom-pom cheerleading for OCC. If you have an argument, lay it out, otherwise, once again, put up or shut up...

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I think you've taken both out of context. The government improving upon the law of the land,

Improving upon the law of the land? For everyone? Or for themselves? Why do you think the Constitution was so controversial? You do realize, don't you, that the Federalist Papers were written because it looked as if the Constitution was headed for the trash. It was written illegally, and did not serve to improve the lives of many average Americans at the time. Is it a good document? History says yes. But at the time, that was very much in question. I really suggest, as a constitutionalist, that you take a political theory course that delves into the formation of the actual Constitution you always cite.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton What, are you waiting for me to copy and paste a book? I told OCC to summarize it or provide a shorter refute of the scenario of Jekyll Island I posted which was much much shorter.

no, im waiting for you to at least read his post and get your own answers to the questions you asked him to summarise. is it too hard when your research involves more than an obscure youtube video?

quote:

You've managed to remain a sideline cheerleader in this whole debate, so I'de be nice if you could contribute something other than the pom-pom cheerleading for OCC. If you have an argument, lay it out, otherwise, once again, put up or shut up...

yeah, because im not an economist. you even said yourself that

quote:

I think you want some sort of academic response or something? Sorry, but I can't give that to you at this time as I'm still undergrad

so why you expect me to waltz in here with my history and politics qualifications is a bit weird. might sound weird to you, but i enjoy reading people's posts even if i don't get too deep in the argument.

but, you have at least maintained the conspiracy theorist technique of posting a bunch of sensationalist videos, then ignoring anything anyone else says about it, especially if that person appears more knowledgeable than you.

my argument is this: you guys that live on the "fringe" with your outlandish ideas never really display the commitment you profess to have. If the situation is as obviously bad and corrupt as you state, then you shouldn't have any problems pointing that out to someone with economics credentials, such as occrider. He went to significant time and effort to provide you with the answers you seek, yet your response equates to "COR version please". If you want your (crazy) ideas to make an impact, you have to be willing to defend them from the "adults" that know more than some BS video has to show you.

If you don�t possess an academic-like commitment to responding to reasonable criticisms or arguments, why on earth are you here? im sick and tired of those of you that love the "outside" never sticking around to adequately defend your position. its disingenuous and profoundly irritating.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Improving upon the law of the land? For everyone? Or for themselves? Why do you think the Constitution was so controversial? You do realize, don't you, that the Federalist Papers were written because it looked as if the Constitution was headed for the trash. It was written illegally, and did not serve to improve the lives of many average Americans at the time. Is it a good document? History says yes. But at the time, that was very much in question. I really suggest, as a constitutionalist, that you take a political theory course that delves into the formation of the actual Constitution you always cite.

With PLEASURE! I'll look for it as an elective..

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton With PLEASURE! I'll for it as an elective..

American political history is really a fascinating subject - if you haven't already read it, I definitely recommend you also check out Alexis de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America" from 1830. It gets a bit dull in spots, but it's a very prescient take on early American governance and society.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN no, im waiting for you to at least read his post and get your own answers to the questions you asked him to summarise. is it too hard when your research involves more than an obscure youtube video?

First off, videos I've posted are limited to the front page. Videos are not my sole tool in the evidence bag.

quote:

yeah, because im not an economist. you even said yourself that so why you expect me to waltz in here with my history and politics qualifications is a bit weird. might sound weird to you, but i enjoy reading people's posts even if i don't get too deep in the argument.

I usually have a knack for trying to stick to the argument at hand and avoiding personal criticism, unless a latinloser needs a spanking, but I'm not a latinloser. In this thread, I see no reason why anyone has a need to personal criticism. Can we stop talking about me and my background in this thread, and just worry about the arguments?

quote:

but, you have at least maintained the conspiracy theorist technique of posting a bunch of sensationalist videos, then ignoring anything anyone else says about it, especially if that person appears more knowledgeable than you.

Again, I posted very informative videos with people who are smarter than all of us, and have experience in their related backgrounds. Did you not notice that at all? I'm not posting videos from 911truth.org for christ's sake!!

quote:

my argument is this: you guys that live on the "fringe" with your outlandish ideas never really display the commitment you profess to have. If the situation is as obviously bad and corrupt as you state, then you shouldn't have any problems pointing that out to someone with economics credentials, such as occrider. He went to significant time and effort to provide you with the answers you seek, yet your response equates to "COR version please". If you want your (crazy) ideas to make an impact, you have to be willing to defend them from the "adults" that know more than some BS video has to show you.

I think I provided several problems pointing out problems within the system. I'de hardly consider myself a conspiracy fringe kook as you try to make me out to be. I for the most part, believe 911 really happened, I believe the central bank does serve a good purpose, though not in its current form. I don't believe in "evil" bankers, just criminal ones. I think you pkc, misunderstand me on so many levels, but I'll keep trying to help you guys understand..

quote:

If you don�t possess an academic-like commitment to responding to reasonable criticisms or arguments, why on earth are you here? im sick and tired of those of you that love the "outside" never sticking around to adequately defend your position. its disingenuous and profoundly irritating.

Sorry, but I don't have the stamina to read that long of a copy & paste on a computer screen. I might as well print it out and take my time reading it then. Until then, I'll rather have a summary explaination for why the Jeykll Island meeting was for the best interest of the voters, and not the money changers. How simple can that possibly be? I'm still here, aren't I. So what are you talking about me leaving the argument?

The 21 evils of inflation...

[[ LINK REMOVED ]]


This professor breaks it down and gets deep about inflation.

The one evil that struck me was,

The first to receive inflationary money are the ones to benefit from inflation because prices have yet to have risen as the market becomes aware of the additional money supply. Therefore, they are able to buy more now. The first ones to receive inflationary money are the government and banks...

Also, the illusion of increased wealth. Before the market realizes the extra money supply by raising prices (which takes several months), the beneficiaries of inflation increase consumption, thus spending rises. This gives investors the illusion that markets are appreciating, when in reality, it is just extra money flowing into the system.

What I don't understand is why people only see inflation as a bad thing. It is an unavoidable symptom of a growing economy. In some cases one would say it even provides incredible benefits. As our currency becomes worth less, our goods become cheaper to buy in the global market. Other countries find them more attractive relative to goods from a country with a higher valued currency and our exports rise. As our exports rise the companies in our country realize increased profits and can expand production to meet greater demand. There is a whole host of benefits to our economy from our businesses growing that I don't feel I have to explain.

Why do you think China is keeping their currency worth so little compared to the dollar? Their goods are really cheap and the world buys from them. Their economy is, as a result growing at double digit figures.

While this is simple economic theory, it is exampled by Asian countries as we speak. Europe and the U.S. are experiencing an unbelievable trade deficit which I think is far more harmful to this country than managed inflation and devaluation of the dollar.

Look at export figures recently (while I don't have an exact figure or story for you someone else might be able to chime in on that) and you will see an increase in U.S. exports, while our dollar continues to fall.

And anyone who wants us to return to the gold standard is a little out of touch with reality. Gold is a completely limited commodity which will restrict the growth of our economy to our ability to collect gold. Gold is just like paper in that it only has value if you value it. I don't value gold, I value assets that are always needed regardless of economic conditions. Land, food, resources that can be used to produce goods and services that are needed or wanted. Gold can be used to produce trinkets. I value the metal far less than steel because we can not use it to create a building, a tank, a car. Its uses are limited and therefor its value is too. If a catastrophe strikes, I don't want gold, I want and shelter. The ability to protect myself.

The value of a precious metal is assigned as arbitrarily as the value of a currency; however we can create more money to suit the growth of our economy, and gold we cannot.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton The first to receive inflationary money are the ones to benefit from inflation because prices have yet to have risen as the market becomes aware of the additional money supply. Therefore, they are able to buy more now. The first ones to receive inflationary money are the government and banks... Also, the illusion of increased wealth. Before the market realizes the extra money supply by raising prices (which takes several months), the beneficiaries of inflation increase consumption, thus spending rises. This gives investors the illusion that markets are appreciating, when in reality, it is just extra money flowing into the system.

It is called economic lag. There is a similar lag in the increase in wages after we see price increases. What do you expect, for everything to magically change instantly; all at the same time? One thing changes, then the markets have to readjust to the change. This takes time. There is disparity in the meantime. What we can do is try to help those suffering from this disparity until the correction is complete.

quote:

If a catastrophe strikes, I don't want gold, I want and shelter. The ability to protect myself.

If a catastrophe strikes, and you don't have food or shelter, how will you acquire them? Do you really think people will trade you these things for a pile of paper and ink?

Ask the people in Weimar about that.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt If a catastrophe strikes, and you don't have food or shelter, how will you acquire them? Do you really think people will trade you these things for a pile of paper and ink? Ask the people in Weimar about that.

And do you think someone will want gold? What can my neighbor do with gold? They have food, I need food. I need to find something I have or can do that is worth value. It is called bartering. It existed before money. The trade of goods and services directly. In the threat of an extreme catastrophe, if someone wanted food or shelter that I have and hands me some gold, I will turn them away.

If they offer their physical help in planting crops with me, and managing the supply of food, they will be entitled to access to that food in exchange for their labor. It is called working together for a common good, or survival. The very basics of economics.

Gold is a universal currency and it DOES have instrinsic value by virtue of it being rare (unlike paper). Gold has been used as money for thousands of years...through the rise and fall of empires, repeated holy wars, world wars, famines, etc. Gold endures and always holds value...not because any government decrees that it should, and not not even because it's pretty and fun to hold. It has always been money for one simple reason...though 10,000 years of recorded human history, it is what people have CHOSEN as money. It is what people have always chosen as the medium of exchange. It can't be printed, and is not subject to the whims of temporary governments that men create. For this reason it will still be considered money LONG after we leave this earth, and long after the dollar/euro/yen/peso have gone the way of the dodo bird.

Oh, and if we got nuked, and I had an extra loaf of bread lying around, I would gladly trade it for an ounce of gold...but If you offered a million paper rectangles I would have to refuse.

It has always held value, true. Throughout the ages it has always been worth something to someone, great. It still limits the growth of an economy to the amount one can collect. It is also still a commodity that only has value because it is rare. It will likely always have value, however economies grow from the conversion of resources into goods and services, not the accumulation of gold.

Should we work to collect gold and other precious metals? Yes. Should our currency be pegged to gold? No. It would increase the value of our currency a great deal and make our goods relatively more expensive in the global market thereby decreasing exports. Businesses would suffer and our economy would suffer.

As it already is from the over-valuation of the dollar as it exists today.

quote:

It is called economic lag. There is a similar lag in the increase in wages after we see price increases. What do you expect, for everything to magically change instantly; all at the same time? One thing changes, then the markets have to readjust to the change. This takes time. There is disparity in the meantime. What we can do is try to help those suffering from this disparity until the correction is complete.

Did you just make up the phrase "economic lag"?

There is no lag anywhere within the chain of inflationary money. The banks get the inflationary dollars first. Everything is cheaper for them. By the time that inflationary money reaches the mainstream money supply, the market would have already realized the increased money supply, thereby making every more expensive.

It's really an observation about who really runs the show here. Inflation increases redistribution of wealth upwards. Inflation is a necessary function of the money system, but when it gets out of hand, what the professor said can be worse 10-fold.

Zimbabwe is one prime example. The government there increased the money supply thousands of time over and guess whose benefiting? Sure ain't the consumer. Only government and money institutions in Zimbabwe benefit from such rampant inflation.

quote:

Originally posted by Dieselboy_1206 What I don't understand is why people only see inflation as a bad thing. It is an unavoidable symptom of a growing economy. In some cases one would say it even provides incredible benefits.

This guy is seriously clued in.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Ask the people in Weimar about that.

In Weimar Republic Germany, the value of the Mark was tied to gold reserves... but when Germany owed more in reparations than it had in gold + foreign reserves, hyperinflation resulted. The government had no choice but to print off more money to cover debts owed under Versailles, resulting in extreme hyperinflation as the value of gold/mark plummeted.

quote:

Originally posted by Lesbianosaur In Weimar Republic Germany, the value of the Mark was tied to gold reserves... but when Germany owed more in reparations than it had in gold + foreign reserves, hyperinflation resulted. The government had no choice but to print off more money to cover debts owed under Versailles, resulting in extreme hyperinflation as the value of gold/mark plummeted.

The same thing can happen in an unpegged currency too? So why is Weimar hyperinflation different from say Zimbabwean hyperinflation, which is a fiat currency..?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton The same thing can happen in an unpegged currency too? So why is Weimar hyperinflation different from say Zimbabwean hyperinflation, which is a fiat currency..?

Well, one, because the Zimbabwean government is retarded, and two because it doesn't really have anything to do with their exchange rate, but that wasn't the point anyhow. Anybody who views gold as a savior ignores the fact that it is just as instable and dangerous as a fiat currency, with few of the benefits in flexibility that a floating exchange rate gives us on a daily basis.

I think I see what fiat currency really is now..

Fiat currency is backed by the value of all goods and services plus the credit rating and backing of the government.

But, then we go back to what the Fed really is. Are they government, or are they private working with government? If they are private, then government does not back the currency, the Fed does.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I think I see what fiat currency really is now.. Fiat currency is backed by the value of all goods and services plus the credit rating and backing of the government. But, then we go back to what the Fed really is. Are they government, or are they private working with government? If they are private, then government does not back the currency, the Fed does.

The Fed is private, but the Chairman is appointed by the government to act as steward.

quote:

Originally posted by Lesbianosaur The Fed is private, but the Chairman is appointed by the government to act as steward.

Who chooses the candidates to be decided by the government?

Falling home values seems to be balancing out with increased investment...

quote:

Foreign buyers snap up 2nd homes in US By LESLIE WINES, AP Business Writer Mon Dec 24, 1:10 PM ET NEW YORK - Panden Rota, a Nepalese producer of fine rugs, is about to become a Manhattanite, the owner of a sumptuous apartment in the luxurious downtown neighborhood of Battery Park City. His primary residence will remain Katmandu, but his new home will allow him to spend more time at U.S. showrooms that display his rugs and with a brother and sister in New York. "I looked at many places and I decided that a Manhattan apartment will always hold its value," he said. Rota is part of a growing wave of foreigners who buy second homes in the U.S. for work and play and as an investment. Cosmopolitan cities like New York and Miami have long served as second homes for affluent and accomplished foreigners. But the trend is growing. One in five American realtors has sold a home to a foreign investor in the past year, according to the National Association of Realtors. The events of 2007 have made the U.S. much more affordable for international home buyers. Severe dollar declines against the euro and pound have made U.S. homes much cheaper for Europeans. But even foreign buyers without that sort of currency advantage are benefiting from sharp drops in housing prices at a time when problems in mortgage lending are keeping many Americans out of the market.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071224...Nc7TE688qIDW7oF

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