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:

Originally posted by Krypton Yea, I don't think I'm so gung ho about changing to a precious metal standard anymore... What needs to be changed is government spending, which can cause inflation and economic calamities. I don't think the problem is so much the fiat currency itself. Fiat currency, when used responsibly, is better than a precious metal pegged currency.

Bingo.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z I'm not proposing a gold standard

I'm really not, either and I've actually stated in the past that I'm not an advocate of it. I just think that it's fun to see our resident debunkers/conspiracy poo-pooists drone on and on about it.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN oh, i wasn't saying that you were. just that most of the talk in here does relate to returning to a gold standard and im still waiting for those to defend the problems inherent with it.

One valid point I do recognize in their argument is that gold actually has value (for a variety of reasons) where as fiat currency is nothing but mere paper that isn't worth anything depending on socio-economic economic conditions. It's only worth anything as long as people "beleive" in it's value, basically. To and extenet that's true for everything ofcourse, but historically speaking, I don't consider binary digits and paper to have any inherent value to themselves.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X I'm really not, either and I've actually stated in the past that I'm not an advocate of it. I just think that it's fun to see our resident debunkers/conspiracy poo-pooists drone on and on about it.

Well, you gotta love the stawmen and ad hominems that are so generouslly used as arguments .

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Well, you gotta love the stawmen and ad hominems that are so generouslly used as arguments .

just like G. Edward Griffin said, they like to use "emotionally loaded words and phrases" and "emotionally-loaded labels to discredit those who disagree..."

(truthers, troofers, tin-foil hatters, conspiracy theorists, etc.)

studying their psy-ops can be fun for the whole family

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X I'm really not, either and I've actually stated in the past that I'm not an advocate of it. I just think that it's fun to see our resident debunkers/conspiracy poo-pooists drone on and on about it.

oh, i see. so you are merely criticising the fed and fiat currency without presenting alternatives. gotta love the troofers!

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Yea, I don't think I'm so gung ho about changing to a precious metal standard anymore... What needs to be changed is government spending, which can cause inflation and economic calamities. I don't think the problem is so much the fiat currency itself. Fiat currency, when used responsibly, is better than a precious metal pegged currency.

yes! we finally agree on something

there's no doubt the fed (and their overseas equivalents) have made poor financial decisions from time to time (and of course economics is hardly an exact science) but the idea that mistakes and/or incompetence = nefarious activity simply isnt supported by the evidence.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X just like G. Edward Griffin said, they like to use "emotionally loaded words and phrases" and "emotionally-loaded labels to discredit those who disagree..."

quote:

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality.

^^^ Doesn't that kind of cantradict your "paranoia" assertion? I don't know about you, but I find nothing exciting, fun, or uplifting about negativity in reality.

From Robert Reich's blog:

quote:

2008 And Beyond: Alan Greenspan's Continuing Legacy Alan Greenspan's worldview had two sources: empiricism based his early fascination with Ludwig Wittgenstein and logical positivism, and libertarianism based on his early interest in the philospher and social critic, Ayn Rand. Greenspan�s proudest legacy stemmed from the former. Standard economic models assumed that if the economy grew faster than 2.5 per cent a year and the rate of unemployment dropped below 6.5 per cent, inflation would result. By the spring of 1996 the US economy was growing at an annual rate of 6 per cent and unemployment had dropped to well below 5.5 per cent, suggesting that Greenspan and his colleagues should slow things down. But Greenspan the empiricist saw an economy very different from that of the 1970s and 80s. �Innovations like the Internet and e-mail went from exotic to ubiquitous. Something extraordinary was happening . . .�, he writes in his memoir. "The textbook strategy would be to tighten rates . . . But I zeroed in on what I believed to be the primary riddle of the technology boom: the question of productivity . . . . Year in and year out, business had been pouring vast amounts of money into desktop computers, servers, networks, software, and other high-tech gear . . . . Productivity was truly accelerating. And if so, then rising inflation would be unlikely." Greenspan convinced his colleagues at the Federal Reserve Board not to raise interest rates, and the rest is history. �By not being too quick to raise rates, we helped clear the way for the postwar period�s longest economic boom.� Unemployment eventually dropped to around 4 per cent, and, as demand picked up for unskilled workers, inequality temporarily narrowed. Bill Clinton is usually credited with the 1990s boom, but it was really a product of Greenspan�s willingness to take a fresh look at the high-tech economy that was emerging in America and reject the economic models created in a different era. Greenspan�s worst legacy sprang from the second source. Ayn Rand had made virtues out of individualism and enlightened self-interest and was deeply suspicious of all collective effort. Greenspan grew to share Rand�s views. In particular, he was sceptical about efforts to help the less fortunate. �What attracted me to Reagan�, he explains, �was the clarity of his conservatism which was to say that tough love is good for the individual and good for society.� This �implies much less government support for the downtrodden�. Bill Clinton was elected in 1992, in part to reverse what Reagan had wrought. Clinton promised to provide all Americans with the health care, education, job training and other supports they needed in order to adapt to a fast-changing economy, as well as repair the nation�s roads, bridges and ports, which had been neglected for many years. Yet by the time Clinton came to office, the federal budget deficit had grown so large he had to trim his ambitions. Ironically, that deficit had ballooned largely because Ronald Reagan had cut taxes and increased spending, mostly on the military. Although he was chairman of the Federal Reserve Board during Reagan�s final years in the White House, Greenspan�s memoirs don�t suggest he warned Reagan against the widening deficit. It seems more likely that Greenspan agreed with Reagan and others in his administration that deficit spending as Reagan undertook it would serve to �starve the beast�, forcing any subsequent Democratic President � such as Bill Clinton � to offer less support to the downtrodden. The question we faced at the start of the Clinton administration was how much deficit reduction was necessary, and how much of Bill Clinton�s original agenda would have to be jettisoned as a result. Greenspan urged Clinton in no uncertain terms to make deficit reduction the priority and sacrifice everything else. �The path to a beneficient future, I told the president-elect, was lowering the long-term trajectory of federal budget deficits.� What Greenspan did not tell Clinton, but admits in his memoirs, was that Clinton had been saddled with Reagan�s profligacy � almost exactly as Republicans had planned it. �Reagan had borrowed from Clinton, and Clinton was having to pay it back.� Greenspan�s advice to Clinton came with an implied promise and threat. If Clinton cut the deficit, Greenspan would reduce interest rates and allow the economy to expand briskly. This would make the �latter part of the 1990s . . . look awfully good�, thereby improving the odds of Clinton�s re-election. But if Clinton failed to cut the deficit adequately, Greenspan would not reduce interest rates, and the economy would continue to limp along, perhaps threatening Clinton�s re-election. Greenspan admits he was �not oblivious to the fact that 1996 would be a presidential election year�. He was, in short, engaging in political extortion. The choice was Clinton�s, but Greenspan held a gun at his head. �Either he could opt for a package of spending programs that would fulfill some of his campaign promises, or he could opt for a deficit-cutting plan . . . there was no in-between � we couldn�t afford both.� Several of Clinton�s advisers, of whom I was one, did not believe the budget needed to be cut as much as Greenspan wanted, or that so much of Clinton�s campaign had to be abandoned. As Greenspan puts it, �the conflict extended to within the White House, where key people were still pushing for an agenda less compatible with Wall Street�. But only Greenspan had a gun. So he and Wall Street won. The ensuing boom seemed to validate the choice Clinton made, but in reality it only validated Greenspan�s power. Lower interest rates had the desired effect, at least in the short term. The economy surged forward, and Clinton won re-election. In the ensuing years, tax revenues exploded, the budget deficit disappeared, and by the start of the Bush administration the federal government had a significant budget surplus. For the first time in decades, America had the resources it needed to provide health care, education and job training, and repair the nation�s infrastructure. But Greenspan did not trust the government to do any of this. He threw his support behind a tax cut, instead: "Chronic surpluses could be almost as destabilizing as chronic deficits," he writes. "Spending would have to be raised or taxes cut, and to me the preferable course seemed clear. I have always worried that once spending is notched up, it is difficult to rein in. The same is less true about tax cuts." Greenspan�s testimony before Congress in 2001, calling for a tax cut, was critical to George W. Bush�s successful mustering of the political support he needed for his mammoth tax cut, the benefits of which have gone mostly to wealthy Americans. The Bush tax cut drained the federal treasury, eliminating the entire budget surplus within months. Greenspan writes that he didn�t intend to endorse the Bush tax proposal specifically, but this seems disingenuous. Bush�s proposal was the only one under consideration at the time, the new President had made it the centrepiece of his economic policy, and Congressional and media attention was riveted on it when Greenspan testified. Greenspan must have known his testimony would be interpreted as support for Bush�s tax cut. He had spent decades in Washington and well understood the ways of the capital city. �I resigned myself to the idea that my testimony would be politically framed.� He later told his wife, in the mocking tone Claude Rains once used with Humphrey Bogart, �I am shocked, shocked, that there is politics on Capitol Hill�. Indeed, Greenspan admits he was �willing to be optimistic about the legislation�s effects. It would work down the surpluses before they became dangerous�. What Greenspan still views as �dangerous� was a tragically missed opportunity to redress the nation�s long-term problems. They transcend the ups and downs of the business cycle, and must still be dealt with if middle- and lower-income Americans are to have any chance of improving their standard of living. In the new global economy, private investment will go anywhere around the world it can get the highest rate of return. The only aspect of a nation�s economy that remains unique is its people � especially their education, health and the transport and communications systems linking them together. These generate lasting productivity gains. But partly owing to Greenspan the libertarian, even if a Democrat were to retake the White House in 2008, the government wouldn�t have nearly enough money to do what is needed. America�s primary and secondary schools will lack the necessary resources to provide young people from lower-income families with the education they need. Tens of millions of Americans will continue to lack health insurance and tens of millions more will barely be able to afford the insurance they do have. America�s infrastructure will continue to deteriorate. Last July, a steam conduit dating from 1914 exploded in New York City; last August, a forty-year-old bridge collapsed in Minneapolis, killing several motorists. Finally, and for all these reasons, inequality will continue to widen. Alan Greenspan the empiricist contributed a great deal to America, instigating the longest economic expansion in recent history and rewriting the rules of monetary policy. But Alan Greenspan the Ayn Rand libertarian has caused the nation grave injury.

http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2007/12/2008-and-beyond-alan-greenspans.html

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z ^^^ Doesn't that kind of cantradict your "paranoia" assertion? I don't know about you, but I find nothing exciting, fun, or uplifting about negativity in reality.

not really; i think some people (not pointing fingers) have a predeliction for the fantastic, there's an appeal of "being in the know" when everyone else around you is a "sheeple". i went through the same thing growing up as a rabid marxist. i look back on those times and laugh.

it simply means that some people, imo, are more likely to swallow outlandish notions without a corresponding amount of plausible evidence. that's really all i am EVER after in these kind of discussions. evidence. i dont dismiss every theory i hear that sounds a bit off, indeed i was dangerously close to becoming a 911 troofer myself there for a few months, because (i thought at the time) the evidence i was being presented with was pretty strong.

What is your reality when your worldview is but a sliver of our physical perception to begin with and then to add insult to injury, you are too afraid to study anything outside of the narrow boundaries which the corporate establishment has psychologically set for you?

It's becoming more and more clear to me that there's a large number of corporate shills who want us to be nothing but obedient consumers, oblivious to everything except our careers, our basic living needs and the mindless entertainment that is spoon-fed to us on almost every television channel, everyday while the world's elite squeezes out the middle class through their expansion and contraction of the money system.

To me it often looks like we're on our way to Neofeudalism but I think it's still way too early to tell. I just know that it looks like we're going to have a bumpy ride, wherever we're going.

more economists for Ron Paul

Al Korelin says that Ron Paul is his hero and Ron Paul talks about Federal Reserve transparency (or lack, thereof)

Part I



http://youtube.com/watch?v=XW-MHe3IowE


Part II



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXhqsu3YOfE


Part III



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZgkkNxGznU

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X What is your reality when your worldview is but a sliver of our physical perception to begin with and then to add insult to injury, you are too afraid to study anything outside of the narrow boundaries which the corporate establishment has psychologically set for you?

too afraid? dont make me laugh trancer! i have never, and will never, be afraid of information. i might not be as ardent a researcher as i was when i was younger, but that doesnt mean i shy away from information that i disagree with. indeed, that's the whole reason i am in the PDD. i find i learn so much from those that have differing viewpoints and sources than i would ever be able to locate on my own.

the problem for me is those that use catch phrases like "corporate establishment" as if there's a shady unity between every official structure, ignoring the deep-seated competition and disagreements within that "corporate establishment".

yes, money breeds power and is misused and abused everyday. all i require to believe some of the more fanciful ideas is a corresponding amount of evidence - the more outlandish the claim, the more evidence i require. i dont see why you seem to think this is a failing?

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X It's becoming more and more clear to me that there's a large number of corporate shills who want us to be nothing but obedient consumers, oblivious to everything except our careers, our basic living needs and the mindless entertainment that is spoon-fed to us on almost every television channel, everyday while the world's elite squeezes out the middle class through their expansion and contraction of the money system.

and this is the other thing i hate. you constantly label those that disagree with you as some agent of the system, and possess a "desire" for ANYTHING. i have no desires here, except to be introduced to new trance tunes, and to learn from people from all walks of life across the world. i am a big fan of questioning authority, but i also have a deep respect for those that are experts in their field. i have plenty of friends engaged in the hard sciences, and their commitment, intelligence and integrity with their studies and vocation are admirable. they're no more "government shills" than you are.

thus, i possess a certain level of respect for those that in comparable disciplines the world over, as long as their arguments appear to be sound. I cant believe that a rational person really believes that a small amount of people can control the lives, studies and opinions of so many people that make a living from the disciplines they have studied and spent their life learning about. again, would you prefer a doctor or a cleaner to perform a life-saving operation on you?

And yet, (for instance) the 911 truth movement is the first to jump up and down with glee the moment ANY supposed expert decides to agree with them. How is that intellectually honest or consistent?

That was a good try but what you do is too blatant for you to act like you're objective. I've shown several of my friends your posts in this forum and (without asking them first) a few even commented to that effect, so it's not just me.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X That was a good try but what you do is too blatant for you to act like you're objective.

i never said i was objective. i have biases, just like anybody else (including you i hate to tell you)! but i am certainly OPEN to other points of view, as long as the argument is compelling or the evidence is sound. youtube videos with an axe to grind are neither from where i come from.

in any case, as long as you entertain the idea that im not a dis-info employee trying to further the goals of the NWO, ill take that as a win i can forward you picks of me playing at trance events if you'd like? i really do love trance and that is why i joined TA. im really not part of any evil conspiracy.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X I've shown several of my friends your posts in this forum and (without asking them first) a few even commented to that effect, so it's not just me.

well forgive me for not giving two shits what your friends think. i could ask every single person i know, and they'd say you were a crackpot conspiracy theorist that needs to get out more. doesn't make it true though

pkc is an agent from the man on top..

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton pkc is an agent from the man on top..

hahaha. well, to be honest, i DO work for a government department. but if you saw what i did each day you would feel more pity than fear

today: ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. sat on TA all day chatting with you fine gentleman.

so do you get paid per hour or per post?

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X so do you get paid per hour or per post?

haha. i have a salary, so i guess its per hour. if it was per post you'd see me in far more forums

but you probably get bonuses for posting in 9/11, Federal Reserve and other such corporate gov't related threads, don't you? lol

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X but you probably get bonuses for posting in 9/11, Federal Reserve and other such corporate gov't related threads, don't you? lol

actually, if my bosses knew how much time i spent surfing the net i'd probably get fired

that WOULD likely happen

if you weren't being paid to post

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X but you probably get bonuses for posting in 9/11, Federal Reserve and other such corporate gov't related threads, don't you? lol

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X that WOULD likely happen if you weren't being paid to post

hahaha. hey, im not the only one here that disagrees with some of the more alternative theories buzzing around. how come im the only one that's a supposed disinfo agent?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton

I know that. That's one of the ways that today's fascists are trying to intimidate us outspoken but otherwise law-abiding citizens into quiet submission.

Why do you think that Stalin purged so many artists and intellectuals?

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