Originally posted by jerZ07002
Under an article you quoted, which states in its text that deposits are insured up to 100K, you said "jim rogers says don't keep more than 100K in the bank." Since that was all you said I assumed your point was keep at most 100K in the bank and the support for that statement was the article.
No, I watched a video of him saying that the day before yesterday and was simply prefacing that newer video that I just posted with that comment.
I thought that maybe this last beer I just had was laced or something because I was sure that I hadn't quoted anything.
Groundhog Boy
quote:
Originally posted by Trancer-X
Was that a quote? I said that he said? I fail to see any quote :conf:
Skip English class much? lol
Oh, you got me there....
jerZ07002
quote:
Originally posted by Trancer-X
CPI? lol
How about M3? Oh yeah, they stopped publishing that in 2006.
Hmmm, I wonder why?
I like how Ron Paul grills Helicopter Ben in this video:
In and of itself M3 wouldn't give you an inflation number. It's simply a whole number without context. M3 also isn't as useful as M1 and M2 because it includes things like repurchase agreements (a contract to repurchase securities) which doesn't even indicate anything about inflationary pressures.
Trancer-X
quote:
Originally posted by jerZ07002
In and of itself M3 wouldn't give you an inflation number. It's simply a whole number without context. M3 also isn't as useful as M1 and M2 because it includes things like repurchase agreements (a contract to repurchase securities) which doesn't even indicate anything about inflationary pressures.
I know it's a little off-topic, but it's funny that you mentioned the M1 after I was just looking at this:
quote:
Former Fed analyst questions M1 currency component spike prior to 9/11
March 22, 2007 – William Bergman worked at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago from July 1990 until early 2004. He served as an economist for eight years, and then moved to a senior analyst position in a new department researching financial market and payment system risk policy issues. In late 2003, he was asked to consider an assignment in the money laundering area. Bergman accepted the assignment, underwent a background check, received credentials affording access to confidential banking information, and began working in the area. He was told that he was “part of the fight against terrorism” and that he “had been asking good questions.”
One aspect of the assignment to the money laundering area was for Bergman to develop a paper that, if accepted, could serve as a reference source for the Federal Reserve System.
Bergman decided to begin his new assignment by developing a 40 question Q&A in order to introduce himself and anyone else new to the money laundering area to the topic. He thought that the Q&A could serve as a primer that dealt with the fundamentals, including some history on money laundering, recent legal developments in the area, and the role of banking regulators.
After submitting his draft to a supervisor, Bergman received approval of his work and was told that it could be considered as a reference. However, in his Q&A, Bergman left one question without an answer. That is to say that Bergman submitted his 40 question Q&A with 40 questions, but only 39 answers. The supervisor that reviewed the draft told Bergman that he should continue his work by answering the only remaining unanswered question in the draft.
What prompted the unanswered question that Bergman incorporated into his draft? Bergman had noted that the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve had issued supervisory letters to the 12 Reserve Banks in the weeks after September 11, 2001 urging scrutiny of suspicious activity reports in tracking terrorism activity and financing. However, Bergman also noticed that the Board of Governors had issued a similar letter, albeit one that did not refer explicitly to terrorism, on August 2, 2001[1]. According to Bergman, terrorism and terrorist financing were known to be part of ‘suspicious activity’ however, and the August 2, 2001 supervisory letter clearly called for scrutiny of suspicious activity, which implies and includes the tracking of terrorism activity and financing. The unanswered question on Bergman’s 40 question Q&A asked why the Board had issued the August 2, 2001 letter – a very fair, logical, and important question that has yet to be answered to this day.
Given the fact that the supervisor gave him the green light and directed him to find the answer regarding the August 2, 2001 supervisory letter, Bergman decided that the best method to discover the answer was to contact the staff of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve directly. In December 2003 he called the Board and inquired about the meaning and motivation behind the August 2, 2001 letter. Within two weeks his assignment was abruptly terminated and his credentials canceled.
Bergman explains:
At the time I was also looking into and asking questions about currency flows. I thought these questions were worth pursuing, and was planning to raise them when I made the above-noted phone call to the Board of Governors. The currency component of M1 (Federal Reserve Notes circulating outside of banks) rose especially rapidly in July and August 2001. In fact, up to and including August 2001, that month (August 2001) was one of the three fastest growing months for the currency component of M1 since 1947, on a seasonally adjusted basis, even on the heels of significantly above-average growth in July 2001. Much of the July-August surge (over $5 billion above-average) seems to have been in the $100 denomination. Among other explanations, persons aware of any imminent terrorist attacks and concerned about possible asset seizures such as those that arose after the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis and the 1998 embassy bombings could have been trying to liquidate their bank accounts in July and August 2001. The money trail could provide important clues about people aware of, if not responsible for, the attacks. I looked at some internal data bearing on this issue that was available to anyone within the Federal Reserve’s internal computer network; after going back to look at this important data again a week or two later, it was no longer freely available, but password protected.
Approximately one month after his money laundering work was terminated for what was described at the time as an egregious breach of protocol attributed to his contacting the staff of the Board of Governors, Bergman’s department was absorbed into another department, and his 14-year employment with the Federal Reserve ended. Bergman was told that the elimination of his position at the Federal Reserve had nothing to do with him personally – that it was an organizational matter. He was offered and accepted a severance package, and left the Chicago Federal Reserve Bank in March 2004.
Whether inquiring about the unusually high put options placed prior to 9/11 on airline companies such as American and United, or the World Trade Center Complex insurance companies such as Axa, Allianz, along with other insurance companies of interests, put options that then most likely made the insiders billions of dollars as a result of these companies’ stock values plummeting after 9/11, or about an unusual spike in the currency component of the M1 in July / August 2001 that appears to be $5 billion denoted in $100 bills – and what the reader is left with is more evidence that prior knowledge of 9/11 was rampant in the United States and that the event could have been prevented but was instead, enabled and exploited.
And what about the August 2, 2001 supervisory letter? What prompted it? Sadly, Americans are once again left with trying to determine for themselves - because nobody entrusted to uphold the rule of law free from passion or prejudice is willing to launch a thorough and purposeful criminal investigation - who knew what, and when.
Prior knowledge of 9/11 without action and / or effort to prevent the events from unfolding is at minimum – criminally negligent homicide – a felony. For many within the U.S. government and foreign intelligence community, as well as the banking cartel, for the entire wide-ranging set of un-indicted co-conspirators, justice waits, but must prevail.
Does this thread actually have anything to do with the EU any more?!
Trancer-X
quote:
Originally posted by George Smiley
Does this thread actually have anything to do with the EU any more?!
Absolutely. Just as much as the EU/UN has to do with the NWO which is pretty much everything. It's simply another part of the Gardner Strategy which is...
quote:
In Foreign Affairs magazine in 1974, diplomat Richard Gardner offered his fellow globalists advice on how to bring Americans around to embracing world government. It would have to be done, he wrote, by stealth:
"The house of world order will have to be built from the bottom up...an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault."
1944, Bretton Woods: The IMF and the World Bank
1945, San Francisco: The United Nations
1994, Marrakech: The World Trade Organization
History knows where it is going... The World Trade Organization, the third pillar of the New World Order,
along with the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund.
- New York Times, April 15, 1994, pg A9
(from a full page ad in the New York Times celebrating the creation of the WTO which was formed by the signing of GATT in Marrakech, Morocco)
Originally posted by Trancer-X
Absolutely. Just as much as the EU/UN has to do with the NWO which is pretty much everything. It's simply another part of the Gardner Strategy which is...
It is deceiving to use the New York Times as the citation for the comments considering the comments were in an advertisement in the Times.
Trancer-X
quote:
Originally posted by jerZ07002
It is deceiving to use the New York Times as the citation for the comments considering the comments were in an advertisement in the Times.
The ad was paid for by the Morroccan government in anticipation of the signing of the Marrakesh Protocol of GATT 1994 ;)
Trancer-X
After watching this I'm thinking about voting for Chuck Baldwin.
quote:
At a press conference held on Sept. 10, 2008, Pastor Chuck Baldwin, candidate for president on the Constitution Party, brought up the New World Order. He ripped into the globalist schemers who want to "merge America into a globalist order." He charged that there is no real difference between the Democratic and Republican Parties. He alleged that both parties are taking America into an "evil direction" and he also sharply criticized John McCain for his globalist-like views.
The press conference was called by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) and was held at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.
pkcRAISTLIN
I cant believe people are so paranoid about free trade and an increasing inter-connectedness of all nations. You ing hicks.
diggerz
quote:
Originally posted by George Smiley
Does the EU want America to fall?
No. What a load of rubbish (sorry, garbage!)
Our economies are in turmoil because of the economic downturn in the American markets, that means the further America "falls", the further we do as well, so no, nobody wants America to fall...
i really like you
Trancer-X
quote:
I appreciate Chuck's strong stance on the 2nd Amendment.
