Originally posted by culorut
Again he knows what is up with the Federal Reserve. My hope is that he can stay clear of the shadow government because the last one which tried (Kennedy) well you know...
Ummm what is up with our Federal Reserve? What major economy operates without a central bank? I thought I argued most major issues in this thread but I would gladly continue the argument if you would like:
Originally posted by stevieboy32808
Whatever you do don't vote for Fred Dalton Thompson if he indeed does run. He's a lazy son of a gun.
Why do you say that?
nrjizer
quote:
Originally posted by jonSun
I feel the same way. His chances are zero but he was kinda right in what he said.
The Fox News tools are all over this one. The best part is how fox spins what he said of from our decades of bombing/involvement in the mid east spurred terrorism to Ron Paul is a 9/11 conspiracy freak saying the government was the main culprit as in commiting the attacks.
Jesus ing christ. The sheer level of horse spewing from this clip is astounding. It may very well have destroyed my few remaining shreds of hope and pride in the people of this country.
Trancer-X
quote:
Originally posted by shaolin_Z
You're back!!! Where the $%^* have you been?!
LOL
I wish that I could say that I've been taking a little R&R but I can't.
:D
occrider
Seriously, Ron Paul is either pandering to his constituents or is as stupid when it comes to economics as it gets. Let's even try to envisage a return to the gold standard.
Supposedly about 145,000 metric tons of gold have been mined. Let's suppose that America controls all of that gold, instead of the approximate 20,000 tonnes that we actually do hold, and that it is divided roughly evenly among our entire population. That comes out to almost one pound per American. There, that pound of rock represents your entire wealth. That's your food, your clothing, your car, your down payment on your house, etc. Gold currently costs about $10,000 per pound, but that price would increase tenfold if we were on the gold standard. Even at current prices, if you wanted to pay $10 for a meal or groceries, you would have to shave off half a gram of gold (a 3 mm wide cube) as payment. With the price increase that the gold standard would bring, you can say goodbye to any practical uses of gold. It is simply not feasible.
Fine forget practical implications, let's consider the economic implications. I don't know if Paul realises this, but in a world of global finance, a fixed exchange rate with the absence of a central bank means that macroeconomic policy is dictated by foreign governments unless we divorce ourselves from all international capital flows. It's called the Mundell-Fleming trilemma, and anyone advocating what Paul is advocating needs to understand that equation and its implications. Monetary swings, will not be determined by us, but by foreign consumers of dollars. Paul needs to pick up an economics textbook, ANY economics textbook really, but Mundell's "The Monetary Dynamics of International Adjustment under Fixed and Flexible Exchange Rates" would do nicely.
Originally posted by occrider
Ummm what is up with our Federal Reserve? What major economy operates without a central bank? I thought I argued most major issues in this thread but I would gladly continue the argument if you would like:
The Federal Reserve sells the tender at interest to the US government, nothing really wrong with it but the USA should be printing it's own money. It is for the best interest of the people this way not the other way around.
The Federal Reserve is made up of the following banks,
- Rothschild Bank of London
- Rothschild Bank of Berlin
- Lazard Brothers of Paris
- Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy
- Warburg Bank of Amsterdam
- Warburg Bank of Hamburg
- Lehman Brothers of New York
- Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York
- Goldman, Schs of New York
- Chase Manhattan Bank of New York
occrider
quote:
Originally posted by culorut
The Federal Reserve sells the tender at interest to the US government, nothing really wrong with it but the USA should be printing it's own money. It is for the best interest of the people this way not the other way around.
This was already commented on in the thread that I linked. Profits from the federal reserve go to the treasury department. It's a federally governed institution.
quote:
The Federal Reserve is made up of the following banks,
- Rothschild Bank of London
- Rothschild Bank of Berlin
- Lazard Brothers of Paris
- Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy
- Warburg Bank of Amsterdam
- Warburg Bank of Hamburg
- Lehman Brothers of New York
- Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York
- Goldman, Schs of New York
- Chase Manhattan Bank of New York
[/quote]
Dude ... seriously. Are you deliberately trying to be deceptive or is this simply ignorance? EVERY single bank that you see with that Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDIC) sticker, saying your desposits are insured up to $100,000 is a member of the Fed. As a matter of fact the only time you'll see a bank that does NOT have that sticker is a state bank that does not cross state lines. This is because federal statutes requires national banks to be part of the Federal Reserve System:
quote:
Every national bank in any State shall, upon commencing business or within ninety days after admission into the Union of the State in which it is located, become a member bank of the Federal Reserve System by subscribing and paying for stock in the Federal Reserve bank of its district in accordance with the provisions of this chapter and shall thereupon be an insured bank under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...22----000-.html
The reason why this is so is to provide regulatory consistency among banks that need to "talk" to each other. If you want to see what happens in the absence of such regulation do some research on the banking industry in the 18th/17th century.
As a matter of fact most state/local banks choose to elect to become members in the federal reserve system themselves because it makes sense much like it makes sense for a country to adopt once currency as opposed to 2 or 3 (and also because state regulators such as the OCC are retarded but that's a different story I'm not going to get into):
quote:
Any state-chartered bank (mutual or stock-formed) may become a member of the Federal Reserve System. The twelve regional Reserve Banks supervise state member banks as part of the Federal Reserve System’s mandate to assure strength and stability in the nation’s domestic markets and banking system. Reserve Bank supervision is carried out in partnership with the state regulators, assuring a consistent and unified regulatory environment. Regional and community banking organizations constitute the largest number of banking organizations supervised by the Federal Reserve System. http://www.bos.frb.org/bankinfo/members/index.htm
If you want to look at one Federal district ALONE, looking at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston there are 63 member banks.
Indeed the "conspiracy" banks you listed are but a mere minority of membership. All of this ignores the failure on your part to understand how "shares" are distributed among member banks and how they are non-distributable. Too bad you're canadian ... otherwise I'd tell you to put your money where your mouth is and put your life savings in a non-FDIC insured bank with potentially weak controls with little regulatory oversight. Well actually you can probably do that in Canada too and I hope you do to avoid hypocrisy. Who's your banker?
/really people economics/finance is not that difficult of a subject
Trancer-X
I'm sure they made it one of their first priorities to tie up all, or at least most of their loose ends, especially when considering that the families who hold the shares in that privately owned banking institution are the ones who basically rule the world. lol
Where did you learn about this, Occ? Textbooks?
I'm just curious.
BTW - I'd be curious to hear your take on this video, entitled "Monopoly Men"
I thought it was good but I'm also no finance wizard, like you seem to be.
occrider
quote:
Originally posted by Trancer-X
I'm sure they made it one of their first priorities to tie up all, or at least most of their loose ends, especially when considering that the families who hold the shares in that privately owned banking institution are the ones who basically rule the world. lol
But didn't I already address the "private aspect" of the fed? Did I not adequately address any issues or questions?
quote:
Where did you learn about this, Occ? Textbooks?
I'm just curious.
No I learned it through my job. I'm an economist major so textbooks provided the basis for theory. As a risk manager I have to understand the role of, and how, regulators interact with private banks. Whether it be via international capital accords such as Basel 2, the SEC, the Office of the Comptroller of the Treasury, the Treasury Department, the Office of Thrift Supervision, etc., etc., etc.
quote:
BTW - I'd be curious to hear your take on this video, entitled "Monopoly Men"
I watched a portion of it, but I was still left wondering if it posed any questions that i didn not already respond to.
quote:
I thought it was good but I'm also no finance wizard, like you seem to be.
I'm not a finance wizard, I've only been in Finance for some 5 years professionally. That being said I have no doubts that I know far more about finance than the average person who doesn't deal with it on a day to day basis unless they spend all their free time reading economics/research journals.
