Originally posted by DOOMBOT
Which happens to be a good basis for my arguments in why I believe that central planning will never be able to keep an economy stable and that it only makes things worse.
And you'd be right. Fortunately, our economy isn't centrally planned. The Federal Reserve does not own the factors of production in the economy...:rolleyes:
culorut
quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
Good job, you know what the Inspector General is. So what? I'll repeat myself. Just because the Inspector General doesn't know something about Fed transactions, does not mean the Fed which carries out these transactions doesn't know itself. It appears that like colorut, you seem to believe the Federal Reserve is involved in criminal activity. Except it seems you accuse them of money laundering while colorut accuses them of accounting fraud. So many accusations, and so little proof. Otherwise, we'd be seeing these criminals (which you people rarely ever identify) charged for some crimes.
The Office of the Inspector General is the FED you ing idiot. It is not just one person. They are accountable for answering where the Trillions of dollars which are missing.
What exactly do you not get?
culorut
Originally posted by ********
Nah there was a world bank then - it was called rothechild's
and that was sort of the reason..
quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
:stongue: thanks for the laugh..
w_ashely is correct moron. Do you even know banking history?
N M Rothschild & Sons
N M Rothschild & Sons (more commonly known simply as Rothschild) is the investment bank company of the Rothschild family. It was founded in the City of London in 1811 and is now a global firm with over 40 offices around the world. The firm acts as a financial advisor to some of the most important companies, largest governments, and wealthiest families in the world.
History
In the late 18th century and early 19th century, Mayer Amschel Rothschild rose to become one of Europe's most powerful bankers in the principality of Hesse-Kassel (Hesse-Cassel) in the Holy Roman Empire. In pursuit of expansion, he appointed his sons to start banking operations in the various capitals of Europe, including sending his third son, Nathan Mayer Rothschild, to England. Nathan Mayer Rothschild first settled in Manchester, where he established a business in finance and textile trading. He later moved to London, where he founded N M Rothschild & Sons in 1811, through which he made a fortune with his involvement in the government bonds market.
According to notable historian and professor at Harvard University Niall Ferguson, "For most of the nineteenth century, N M Rothschild was part of the biggest bank in the world which dominated the international bond market. For a contemporary equivalent, one has to imagine a merger between Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, J P Morgan and probably Goldman Sachs too — as well, perhaps, as the International Monetary Fund, given the nineteen-century Rothschild's role in stabilising the finances of numerous governments."
Originally posted by ********
Nah there was a world bank then - it was called rothechild's
and that was sort of the reason..
unemployed bums that eat random mushrooms arent the most authoratative speakers on the subject, so you'll understand if i continue to ignore you.
quote:
Originally posted by culorut
The Office of the Inspector General is the FED you ing idiot. It is not just one person. They are accountable for answering where the Trillions of dollars which are missing.
What exactly do you not get?
what we don't get is
a) why you assume the money has been stolen?
b) why you think that the money wont be located and disclosed at a future hearing?
c) why, if the bank is a private institution, is it compelled to answer these questions at all?
Lebezniatnikov
quote:
Originally posted by DOOMBOT
You obviously don't agree with my beliefs, which is ok, but its kind of ignorant to believe yours is the only one that makes sense, simply because it is the only one you know.
Are you kidding? You think we don't know what MISES and the Austrian school is all about?
Not everybody comes from your school of thought where it's intellectually tolerable to show disdain for a philosophy of economics without an inkling of what that philosophy actually says.
Lebezniatnikov
quote:
Originally posted by DOOMBOT
Damnit, why didn't I think to look at the Treasuries web site before I typed?!
Well well, if we can't accept the Treasury's explanation for what happened to this money, then we can't very well accept their statement that the money exists in the first place, can we? Way to shoot culorut's argument to pieces.
culorut
quote:
Originally posted by DOOMBOT In all seriousness though, I don't know why you feel that someone can't be self taught in things. I for one don't have the finances to go to school full time so I do a lot of reading on my own. Which I believe can give you much more knowledge then just going through a school criteria which is already made up for you. This is where I find I butt heads with people like yourself. You were taught one philosophy of economics and I have read about more then just one that would have been force fed to me and decided for myself which one I felt made the most sense. You obviously don't agree with my beliefs, which is ok, but its kind of ignorant to believe yours is the only one that makes sense, simply because it is the only one you know.
in hell about time someone said it. The sheeple use this same excuse every time they cannot muster anything else from their limited and one sided education they received in school.
They are still avoiding answering the question just like the dumb FED's in the video(s) I posted up because in reality they really have no ing clue how the banking system works or it's history.
But we should go get an education, OK sure.
:haha: :haha: :haha: :haha:
culorut
DOOMBOT you have any spare popcorn? I ran out a while back with all trolls entertaining us for the last 30 pages with their bull.
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by culorut
in hell about time someone said it. The sheeple use this same excuse every time they cannot muster anything else from their limited and one sided education they received in school.
They are still avoiding answering the question just like the dumb FED's in the video(s) I posted up because in reality they really have no ing clue how the banking system works or it's history.
But we should go get an education, OK sure.
:haha: :haha: :haha: :haha:
you repeatedly display the hallmarks of an uneducated peasant. many people do not need formal education in order to shine in a particular discipline. neither you nor doombot are one of those people.
should have tried harder in school cretinrot.
Lebezniatnikov
quote:
Originally posted by DOOMBOT
The best and most accurate information according to who?
This, again, is why I butt heads with people like yourself. I try and read a much broader range of material then just what my teacher wants me to. You've really contradicted yourself with the above post, whether you want to admit it or not.
Ah yes, ever the Renaissance man, the guy who peruses the controversial books at Barnes and Noble is here to tell us about the limiting perspective of a liberal arts education. You must have had some really teachers in high school if they didn't provide substantive readings of alternative perspectives and didn't ask for thoughtful reviews and criticisms of mainstream arguments. Perhaps you don't know this because you don't have much experience with higher ed, but the construction of a syllabus requires a balanced perspective. The role of a professor is to provide the contexts and the viewpoints that allow a student to reach his/her own conclusions.
Your obvious disdain (without knowledge) of classical economics and your pre-determined acceptance of whatever MISES tells you to think shows that your sampling of various books and perspectives is actually quite shallow.
I don't like to play the advanced degree card, but I can say with a certain level of experience that advancement in higher ed isn't a reflection of how much you know, but rather how well you can learn and think critically.
culorut
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN what we don't get is
a) why you assume the money has been stolen?
b) why you think that the money wont be located and disclosed at a future hearing?
c) why, if the bank is a private institution, is it compelled to answer these questions at all?
You make absolutely no ing sense what so ever. The FED is supposed to give all the money back to the US, not 10, 20 or even 60 percent.
They have to give ALL OF IT BACK minus their operation costs.
This is the way it is otherwise there would have not been the Office General being asked the question in the first place. If you actually knew what you were talking about maybe you would not post such bull.
They are 100% accountable for the money, but go ahead deny it because you are too stupid and ignorant to know anything better.
