quote:

Originally posted by culorut I was the originator of the topic you fuking moron, how about you and PKC watch the actual documentary before running off your mouth and report back. Jesus Christ what the hell happened to every day thinking people who look outside the box? When the fuk did everyone become such a bunch of pussies?

So posting articles and videos counts as original input?

quote:

Two Fed myths that need debunking Bernanke & Co. do not set interest rates, and they're not about to run out of money for bailouts. By Allan Sloan, senior editor at large Last Updated: July 22, 2008: 1:46 PM EDT sloan_rate_drop2.gif Bernanke's dark economic outlookvideo Bernanke's dark economic outlook More Videos Issue #1 * 10 solutions to a personal credit crisis * The junk boom: Profiting from foreclosures * eBay to trim global workforce by 10% * College investment fund frozen * Economic growth revised lower Issue #1: America's Money - Everyday on CNN More from Fortune 3 bank stocks even a bear can love On housing, McCain takes sharp left turn The rise and further fall of RealNetworks FORTUNE 500 Current Issue Subscribe to Fortune NEW YORK (Fortune) -- There are two things you may have heard about the Federal Reserve Board, both of which are wrong. The first is that the Fed controls U.S. interest rates. The second is that the Fed has made so many commitments that it's in danger of running out of cash or Treasury securities. Which would mean it couldn't carry out its declared policy of putting cash into the world financial system or its undeclared policy of keeping institutions that it deems worthy afloat. Let me show you why both of these beliefs are myths, not reality. Let's do interest rates first. It's the more common myth, created partly by sloppiness among people in my business who write (and say) things like, "The Fed cut interest rates today." In fact, we should always insert "short-term" before "interest rates" when we talk about the Fed's control. That because the Fed controls only some short-term rates, primarily the so-called Federal funds rate that financial institutions charge each other for overnight loans. The financial markets set long-term rates, which often don't move in the same direction as the Fed funds rate. The case in point: the relationship - or lack of one - between the Fed funds rate and the interest rate on long-term mortgages. Since September, the Fed has reduced the Fed funds rate by 62% - to 2% from the previous 5.25%. But long-term mortgage rates are higher than on Sept. 18, when the Fed began its rate cuts, as you can see from the adjacent graphic, which is based on numbers from mortgage experts HSH Associates. The rate on a 30-year fixed-rate conforming mortgage - "conforming" means that the mortgage is eligible for sale to mortgage guarantors Fannie Mae (FNM, Fortune 500) or Freddie Mac (FRE, Fortune 500) - was 6.44% the week before the Fed's first cut, and was recently 6.51%. Jumbo mortgages - mortgages too big to be considered conforming - were going for 7.63%, up from 7.26%. (All of these numbers include up-front points that borrowers pay, in addition to their basic interest rate.) The Fed and Treasury - along with many of the world's big financial players - would love to have U.S. mortgage rates decline, because that would lend support to home prices, which could use it. Falling home values - what we have in most U.S. housing markets - increase foreclosures, which increase borrowers' pain and lenders' losses. The declining value of houses as collateral for mortgages makes mortgage lenders less eager to lend, and makes potential home purchasers far less eager to buy. It's a vicious cycle that will end sooner or later - everything does - but it's not something that the Fed (or any individual regulator or player) can control. The Fed cut short-term rates to help mitigate the panics that have been sweeping the world financial markets for more than a year. In addition, those lower rates - in theory, at least - help prop up the U.S. economy. But you can also argue that the Fed's lowering of short-term rates has raised inflation fears and contributed to the decline of the dollar in international markets, which in turn has affected commodities prices, whose massive increases are a major factor in U.S. inflation. So repeat after me: the Fed can set only short-term rates. Which may contribute to having long-term rates act in ways that the Fed didn't intend, and doesn't particularly like. Can the Fed afford it? There's an idea out there that the Fed may run out of money or government securities as a result of the huge, high-dollar programs that it and the Treasury have launched, or could end up having to launch, to keep financial markets afloat. Fed chief Ben Bernanke and his crew have recently embarked on two programs that have raised questions about how it can afford its commitments. First, it will now lend directly not just to commercial banks, but also to institutions, like investment banks. Second, it will now lend selected borrowers Treasury securities (which they can then sell or borrow against) in return for securities (like some mortgage-backed bonds) that can't be sold or borrowed against for anything close to their stated value. The worry is that the Fed owns only about $800 billion of Treasury securities, and all these existing programs, not to mention possibly helping arrange huge loans to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under a bailout plan now being kicked around, would consume a total of more than $800 billion. But that worry overlooks the Fed's amazing power to create as much money as it needs - out of nothing, as it were. Here's how it works. If an institution borrows, say, $50 billion from the Fed, the Fed can just post a $50 billion credit to the bank's account at the Fed, and the borrower can spend that balance on whatever it wants. It is indeed as if the Fed created cash out of nothing. And if the Fed somehow needed more than $800 billion of Treasury securities, it could buy them in the open market, and deposit the payment for them in the seller's Fed account. That way, the Fed could lay its hands on however many Treasury securities it needed. Yes, I'll grant you that this sounds odd. But if you ask a Fednik how this all works, he (or she) would tell you what I've just told you. Except that it would be dressed up in fancier language, with all sorts of explanations of how the Fed can do all this and still carry out its monetary policy. Why am I bothering you with this stuff in mid-summer, a time when I'd rather be off drinking something cold than trying to deal with the Fed? Because myths get in the way of understanding. And if there were ever a time when understanding the Fed's powers - and limitations - matters, that time is now.

___________________

Fuck you guys suck.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Fuck you guys suck.

10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes

7. Inability to withdraw.
It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.

___________________

Mayer Amchel Rothchild (1743-1812)

"Let me issue and control a nation's money, and I care not who writes its laws" --- Meyer Rothschild




Alexander Hamilton

It was Alexander Hamilton who lobbied for the first private Federal Bank, and in 1789 Congress chartered the bank.




Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson was adamantly opposed to the idea of a privately owned federal bank and said " I sincerely believe the banking institutions having the issuing power of money are more dangerous to liberty than standing armies".




In 1811, under President James Madison, Vice President George Clinton broke the tied vote in congress to cast the bankers out refusing to renew the charter for the bankers. Unfortunatly it was President Madison who proposed a second United States privately owned Central bank and it came into existence in 1816




Andrew Jackson

However, in 1836 President Jackson, overriding Congress, closed it commenting, "The bold effort the present bank had made to control the government are but premonitions of the fate that await the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it." (we now have another one like it)

Andrew Jackson also said, when speaking to the bankers: "You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the eternal God I will rout you out."


http://www.wtv-zone.com/Mary/BIGGESTSCAMINHISTORY.HTML




I wonder if these past presidents where all liars and frauds PKC....LOL

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN 10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists A useful guide by Donna Ferentes 7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.

Try applying that retarded list on the past presidents you fucking troll, everyone knew the FED was a scam LOL.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Try applying that retarded list on the past presidents you fucking troll, everyone knew the FED was a scam LOL.

Its interesting that you completely ignore the fact that you were telling lies about kennedy.

Youre a liar and a fraud.

___________________

hey cretinrot, he's talking about you!!

quote:

The banking system of the 19th century US was not that great. Counterfeiting and fraud were routine, there was nobody to verify a bank's solvency, and no guarantee if it failed. So suspicions were well-justified, in contrast to the situation today. During that period the people who were suspicious of banks wrote, and they spoke. That rhetoric is still available for reading, and people do read it, without much appreciation for its context.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=122309

___________________

quote:

Its interesting that you completely ignore the fact that you were telling lies about kennedy.

Lying? Kennedy signed Executive Order 11110, this order stripped the federal reserve of it's power to loan money to the United States at interest. Kennedy said the federal reserve would be out of business shortly after.

5 months later Kennedy was assassinated.

This is fact.

What the fuck don't you understand?

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Lying? Kennedy signed Executive Order 11110, this order stripped the federal reserve of it's power to loan money to the United States at interest. Kennedy said the federal reserve would be out of business shortly after. 5 months later Kennedy was assassinated. This is fact. What the fuck don't you understand?

why do you continue to lie after you have been proven wrong?? maybe you chose to avoid the facts, but here they are again.

quote:

BY: Edward Flaherty, Ph.D. Department of Economics College of Charleston, S.C. Presidential Executive Order 11,110 is quite infamous among conspiracy buffs. Jim Marrs, author of Crossfire: The Plot that Killed Kennedy, writes that the order instructs the Treasury secretary to issue about $4.2 billion in silver certificates as a form of currency in place of Federal Reserve Notes.1 Written by John F. Kennedy, Marrs also speculates this order was part of a larger plan by Kennedy to reduce the influence of the Federal Reserve by giving the Treasury more power to issue currency. The order was signed June 4, 1963. A few months later, of course, Kennedy was killed, and conspiracy theorists hypothesize a link between the murder and E.O. 11,110. They argue that the Federal Reserve was somehow involved in the assassination to protect its power over monetary policy. The executive order modifies a pre-existing order issued by Harry Truman in 1951. E.O. 10,289 states "The Secretary of the Treasury is hereby designated and empowered to perform the following-described functions of the President without the approval, ratification, or other action of the President..." The order then lists tasks (a) through (h) which the Treasurer can now do without bothering the President. None of the powers assigned to the Treasury in E.O. 10,289 relate to money or to monetary policy. Kennedy's E.O. 11,110 then instructs that SECTION 1. Executive Order No. 10289 of September 9, 1951, as amended, is hereby further amended (a) By adding at the end of paragraph 1 thereof the following subparagraph (j): '(j) The authority vested in the President by paragraph (b) of section 43 of the Act of May 12, 1933, as amended (31 U.S.C. 821(b)), to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury not then held for redemption of any outstanding silver certificates, to prescribe the denominations of such silver certificates, and to coin standard silver dollars and subsidiary silver currency for their redemption,' and (b) By revoking subparagraphs (b) and (c) of paragraph 2 thereof. SECTION 2. The amendments made by this Order shall not affect any act done, or any right accruing or accrued or any suit or proceeding had or commenced in any civil or criminal cause prior to the date of this Order but all such liabilities shall continue any may be enforced as if said amendments had not been made. John F. Kennedy, THE WHITE HOUSE, June 4, 1963. To understand exactly what Kennedy's order was trying to do, we must understand the purpose of the legislation which gave the order its underlying authority. The Agricultural Adjustment Act of May 12, 1933 (ch. 25, 48 Stat 51) to which Kennedy refers permits the President to issue silver certificates in various denominations (mostly $1, $2, $5, and $10) and in any total volume so long as the Treasury has enough silver on hand to redeem the certificates for a specific quantity and fineness of silver and that the total volume of such currency does not exceed $3 billion. The Silver Purchase Act of 1934 (ch. 674,48 Stat 1178) also grants this power to the Treasury Secretary subject to similar limitations. Nowhere in the text of the order is a quantity of money mentioned, so it is unclear how Marrs arrived at his $4.2 billion figure. Moreover, the President could not have authorized such a large issue because it would have exceeded the statutory limit.2 As economic activity grew in the fifties and sixties, the public demand for low denomination currency grew, increasing the Treasury's need for silver to back additional certificate issues and to mint new coins (dimes, quarters, half-dollars). However, during the late fifties the price of silver began to rise and reached the point that the market value of the silver contained in the coins and backing the certificates was greater than the face value of the money itself.2 To conserve the Treasury's silver needs, the Silver Purchase Act and related measures were repealed by Congress in 1963 with Public Law 88-36. Following the repeal, only the President could authorize new silver certificate issues, and no longer the Treasury Secretary. The law, signed by Kennedy himself, also permits the Federal Reserve to issue small denomination bills to replace the outgoing silver certificates (prior to the act, the Fed could only issue Federal Reserve Notes in larger denominations). The Treasury's shrinking silver stock could then be used to mint coins only and not have to back currency. The repeal left only the President with the authority to issue silver certificates, however it did permit him to delegate this authority. E.O. 11,110 does this by transferring the authority from the President to the Treasury Secretary.2 E.O. 11,110 did not create authority to issue new silver certificates, it only affected who could give the order. The purpose of the order was to facilitate the reduction of certificates in circulation, not to increase them. In October 1964 the Treasury ceased issuing them entirely. The Coinage Act of 1965 (PL 89-81) ended the practice of using silver in most U.S. coins, and in 1968 Congress ended the redeemability of silver certificates (PL 90-29). E.O. 11,110 was never reversed by President Johnson and remained on the books until 1987 when there was a general cleaning-up of executive orders (E.O. 12,608, 9/9/87). However, by this time the remaining legislative authority behind E.O. 11,110 had been repealed by Congress with PL 97-258 in 1982.2 In summary, E.O. 11,110 did not create new authority to issue additional silver certificates. In fact, its intention was to ease the process for their removal so that small denomination Federal Reserve Notes could replace them in accordance with a law Kennedy himself signed. If Kennedy had really sought to reduce Federal Reserve power, then why did he sign a bill that gave the Fed still more power? Marrs also makes some other factual errors in his conspiracy tale that suggest he is not very familiar with the Federal Reserve or the financial system. He writes that a source of tension between the Federal Reserve and the Kennedy Administration was the Treasury's desire to allow banks to underwrite state and local government bonds, thereby weakening the "dominant" Federal Reserve banks. However, such a move, which was later permitted by Congress, would not have affected the Federal Reserve system because it had never been involved in underwriting bond issues. Marrs also claims that Kennedy signed a bill that changed the backing of small denomination currency from silver to gold to "add strength to the weakened U.S. currency." This is completely false. U.S. currency has not been on the gold standard since 1934, and silver certificates, as their name suggests, had never been redeemable in anything but silver. In addition, U.S. currency was not "weak" during Kennedy's time: There had not been any significant inflation since the late forties, and the exchange rate value of the dollar was fixed according to the Bretton Woods agreement. In the introduction to his book, Marrs advises the reader not to trust his book. This appears to be good advice. References: 1. Marrs, Jim (1989), Crossfire: The Plot that Killed Kennedy, New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers. 2. Woodward, G. Thomas (1996), "Money and the Federal Reserve System: Myth and Reality," Congressional Research Service.

your continued parroting of known fallacies just displays what a dishonest "researcher" you are. horrible confirmation bias. no education. no fucking clue.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Alexander Hamilton It was Alexander Hamilton who lobbied for the first private Federal Bank, and in 1789 Congress chartered the bank.

Cute little pictures aside, what kind of revisionist history do you practice and where do you get these crazy ideas? Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton both being opposed to the idea of a national bank? Poppycock!

quote:

The First New Nation Alexander Hamilton's Financial Program The most pressing problems facing the new government were economic. As a result of the revolution, the federal government had acquired a huge debt: $54 million including interest. The states owed another $25 million. Paper money issued under the Continental Congresses and Articles of Confederation was worthless. Foreign credit was unavailable. The person assigned to the task of resolving these problems was 32-year-old Alexander Hamilton. Born out-of-wedlock in the West Indies in 1757, he was sent to New York at the age of 15 for schooling. One of New York's most influential attorneys, he played a leading role in the Constitutional Convention and wrote 51 of the 85 Federalist Papers, urging support for the new Constitution. As Treasury Secretary, Hamilton designed a financial system that made the United States the best credit risk in the western world. The paramount problem facing Hamilton was a huge national debt. He proposed that the government assume the entire debt of the federal government and the states. His plan was to retire the old depreciated obligations by borrowing new money at a lower interest rate. States like Maryland, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Virginia, which had already paid off their debts, saw no reason why they should be taxed by the federal government to pay off the debts of other states like Massachusetts and South Carolina. Hamilton's critics claimed that his scheme would provide enormous profits to speculators who had bought bonds from Revolutionary War veterans for as little as 10 or 15 cents on the dollar. For six months, a bitter debate raged in Congress, until James Madison and Thomas Jefferson engineered a compromise. In exchange for southern votes, Hamilton promised to support locating the national capital on the banks of the Potomac River, the border between two southern states, Virginia and Maryland. Hamilton's debt program was a remarkable success. By demonstrating Americans' willingness to repay their debts, he made the United States attractive to foreign investors. European investment capital poured into the new nation in large amounts. Hamilton's next objective was to create a Bank of the United States, modeled after the Bank of England. A national bank would collect taxes, hold government funds, and make loans to the government and borrowers. One criticism directed against the bank was "unrepublican"--it would encourage speculation and corruption. The bank was also opposed on constitutional grounds. Adopting a position known as "strict constructionism," Thomas Jefferson and James Madison charged that a national bank was unconstitutional since the Constitution did not specifically give Congress the power to create a bank. Hamilton responded to the charge that a bank was unconstitutional by formulating the doctrine of "implied powers." He argued that Congress had the power to create a bank because the Constitution granted the federal government authority to do anything "necessary and proper" to carry out its constitutional functions (in this case its fiscal duties). In 1791, Congress passed a bill creating a national bank for a term of 20 years, leaving the question of the bank's constitutionality up to President Washington. The president reluctantly decided to sign the measure out of a conviction that a bank was necessary for the nation's financial well-being. Finally, Hamilton proposed to aid the nation's infant industries. Through high tariffs designed to protect American industry from foreign competition, government subsidies, and government-financed transportation improvements, he hoped to break Britain's manufacturing hold on America. The most eloquent opposition to Hamilton's proposals came from Thomas Jefferson, who believed that manufacturing threatened the values of an agrarian way of life. Hamilton's vision of America's future challenged Jefferson's ideal of a nation of farmers, tilling the fields, communing with nature, and maintaining personal freedom by virtue of land ownership. Alexander Hamilton offered a remarkably modern economic vision based on investment, industry, and expanded commerce. Most strikingly, it was an economic vision that had no place for slavery. Before the 1790s, the American economy--North and South--was intimately tied to a trans-Atlantic system of slavery. States south of Pennsylvania depended on slave labor to produce tobacco, rice, indigo, and cotton. The northern states conducted their most profitable trade with the slave colonies of the West Indies. A member of New York's first antislavery society, Hamilton wanted to reorient the American economy away from slavery and colonial trade. Although Hamilton's economic vision more closely anticipated America's future, by 1800 Jefferson and his vision had triumphed. Jefferson's success resulted from many factors, but one of the most important was his ability to paint Hamilton as an elitist defender of deferential social order and an admirer of monarchical Britain, while picturing himself as an ardent proponent of republicanism, equality, and economic opportunity. Unlike Jefferson, Hamilton doubted the capacity of common people to govern themselves. Jefferson's vision of an egalitarian republic of small producers--of farmers, craftsmen, and small manufacturers--had powerful appeal for subsistence farmers and urban artisans fearful of factories and foreign competition. In increasing numbers, these voters began to join a new political party led by Jefferson.

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/da...play.cfm?HHID=6

edit: upon re-reading what you wrote, I realize you didn't even read it. Those "Presidents" were not all opposed to a central bank you dolt - they all supported it until Jackson axed it for political reasons in 1836.

Jesus Christ, if you can't read your own sources, this whole enterprise is pointless.

___________________

Monopoly Men (Federal Reserve Fraud)

10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes

3. Inability to answer questions.
For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.

___________________