This Note Is Legal Tender by kaneman

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Lou Dobbs(CNN) gets this..Ron Paul(Next Prez) gets this, as does every "kook"(PirateNews Antimason)

The only thing PirateNews, Lou Dobbs, and Ron Paul "get" is laughed at, pissed on, and then ignored.

If the FED is some great elitist conspiracy I sincerely doubt that Ron Paul and the assorted ass-Pirate's you mentioned would be the ones to puzzle it out.

I suspect that the FED really is a conspiracy, a conspiracy to attract the nutjobs (kind of like dangling a string in front of Fafnir, my new kitten). That way they focus on nothing while the rest of the world laughs and points and gets on with the real business of everyday life.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 7:29 AM

MALBADINLATIN

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
The Fed does a great job. I don't need to "look into it".
Ron Paul is a joke...at best could get 2% of vote for President.
Pirate News is a Jew-hating Nazi wannabee lying psychopath.
Great post Kaneman!

Jong, remember that snake that was in The Jungle Book, the one with the spiraling swirly eyes that he used to hypnotize others....do you have one of those who visits you every night to fill your mind with partisan crap? Oh wait! of course you do....only it's called TV now!

Ron Paul does well in the debates, gets lot's of applause to the dismay of squirming Republican competitors........then the media tells you he has no chance, and apparently you believe it

You got me on Pirate News

But Jong.....no way do you "trust" the Fed, don't do that to yourself, doing that has gotten some people killed historically, ALWAYS question authority! I wouldn't have picked you for sheeple.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 7:49 AM

JONGSSTRAW

Right...and if my grandmother had handles she could be a wheelbarrow. Whatevers haoli.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 8:00 AM

Quote:
Kaneman-
This board is always at each other's throat(right were they want you) over politics.....The irony is... That most here drink from the same fountain of ignorance! If the average person would look into monetary policy and the creation of the FED, they would see that it is created from the elitists on both sides and division

it is a sad irony. these republicans can talk about cutting taxes and reducing government until theyre blue in the face, and itll still be completely hollow and meaningless until they reconsider our monetary system. its designed to create debt and big government. just look at the debt accrued under the Bush administration.. its not interest free, yet how are we to pay for it? there is never enough money in circulation... so the Fed will continue to print fiat money, which causes inflation. the reason a soda is no longer .05 cents is because our currency continues to be devalued, while the true wealth, the gold and silver, have been taken as collateral by private elite bankers. theyre the ones at the top of the pyramid pulling the strings for global government. what better then a single united currency by which to enslave people by?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 8:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

If the FED is some great elitist conspiracy I sincerely doubt that Ron Paul and the assorted ass-Pirate's you mentioned would be the ones to puzzle it out.

they count on disbelief, its not even a matter of secrecy anymore(amero, N. American Union anyone????)

Quote:
I suspect that the FED really is a conspiracy, a conspiracy to attract the nutjobs (kind of like dangling a string in front of Fafnir, my new kitten). That way they focus on nothing while the rest of the world laughs and points and gets on with the real business of everyday life.

i think youll learn in the end that there was a conspiracy for global government, and that central banks, like the Fed played an intimate role. all it takes is the right mindset, and anyone can be mislead. most of our 'conspirators' may be well intentioned, good people, just doing there jobs or trying to create better policy. but there will always be greedy, nefarious 'criminals' who want otherwise. and the board of the Fed qualify, because they DO know what theyre up to

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 8:24 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

This is Jong from this thread
"The Fed does a great job. I don't need to "look into it"."

This is Jong from another thread
"I trust that our Government, Dems & Reps...Libs & Cons alike, will do what they can to protect us. I don't care about the fine print, so to speak, of how they do it...."

In other words, this is Jong - I say, leave Democracy to the Government ! Where it belongs !

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 9:30 AM

uote:
Originally posted by Hero:

If the FED is some great elitist conspiracy I sincerely doubt that Ron Paul and the assorted ass-Pirate's you mentioned would be the ones to puzzle it out.

=

Whatever

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 9:37 AM

And.. like this mortgage bailout isn't proof that this whole system is a joke...Really 500 billion monopoly dollars PUMPED into the market. Does anyone know of one person that is defaulting on their mortgage loan whos home will be bailed out? Who gets this fake cash? Where does it go and ...why?....

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 9:48 AM

MALBADINLATIN

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
And.. like this mortgage bailout isn't proof that this whole system is a joke...Really 500 billion monopoly dollars PUMPED into the market. Does anyone know of one person that is defaulting on their mortgage loan whos home will be bailed out? Who gets this fake cash? Where does it go and ...why?....

It goes to the guys in the black top hats, and the twizzly white mustaches with the striped pants and vested coats with tails. Like always....

If you're not on Malbadinlatin's side, you're with the terrorists.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 9:49 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Gawd! You guys are economic babies! Don't you remember when the gold standard was the law of the land? It didn't stop Depressions, all it did was take money out of the hands of the poor. Surely you must recall William Jennings Bryan's call for an END to the gold standard, which represented the popular will of the people?

Quote:
Having behind us the producing masses of this nation and the world, supported by the commercial interests, the laboring interests and the toilers everywhere, we will answer their demand for a gold standard by saying to them: You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns, you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.

The problem is not the gold standard, fiat currency or any such. I'm way to busy to give y'all a history of depressions, currencies valuations, and economic policies. Exerpts from THIS show that nothing has changed, with or without the gold standard, under Democrats or Republicans:

Grover Cleveland's (D) economic policies {were}devoted to laissez faire capitalism and the gold standard, ... President Cleveland acted quickly on behalf of employers to quash the {Pullman} strike with a court injunction and regular Army forces.

The economic reverses of 1893 had turned into a major depression that pushed the silver question and other economic reforms to the forefront of political debate. In many areas, including Chicago, unemployment neared 20%. Many farmers and other debtors struggled to pay mortgages and other obligations as dollars backed by a limited gold supply became relatively more valuable .... In many areas large numbers of women and children entered the workforce to help support their families; in the late 1890s nearly 20% of children between ten and fifteen went to work. Often these new entrants to the job market found employment because they worked for nearly half the wages of men.

The depression that began in 1894 turned the election two years later into a pivotal event in which American voters decided their future course. ... Populists called for the federal government to reform its currency policy in dramatic terms on behalf of debtors... Republicans responded by insisting that the gold standard preserved the savings that hard-working people had accumulated {i.e. the wealthy} and as such became a moral obligation. ... Republicans nominated William McKinley of Ohio at their St. Louis convention in the summer of 1896. ... Winning election as Governor of his state, McKinley began to lay the groundwork for a presidential campaign with the sponsorship and management of the Ohio industrialist Marcus Hanna. Marcus Hanna raised millions of dollars for McKinley's campaign by appealing to eastern industrialists uneasy about the prospect of an inflated currency and a regime friendly to workers. While McKinley delivered dozens of speeches from his front porch in Canton, Ohio and Hanna reprinted them in Republican newspapers around the nation Bryan (D) traveled the country delivering stemwinding orations. But Bryan's campaign could not match Hanna's organization and resources, and many urban workers decided to cast their lot with the Republicans.

McKinley and the Republicans swept the election of 1896, running particularly well in the industrial Northeast, mid-Atlantic and Midwest.

In the depression of the mid-1890s many businesses faced bankruptcy. Financiers like J.P. Morgan and E.H. Harriman stepped in to buy them at discounted prices, and in many cases reorganized entire industries through the formation of arrangements that Americans came to call "trusts." In a trust arrangement a single, central holding company often held the stock of many smaller companies "in trust," and effectively coordinated their activities. These firms often ceased to compete with one another by increasing production or cutting prices.

...As in the case of the 1870s, rapid technological advances allowed American industrialists to increase their productive capacity at a far greater rate than the market's ability to consume their products. Their warehouses bulging with unsold stock, many firms responded by slashing prices again and again in a downward competitive spiral. By managing production and ending price competition in many sectors, the trusts began a new era of private economic policymaking and coordination in America.

But the trusts did not bode well for labor.... Increasingly industrial corporations used new technology to reduce their dependence upon skilled workmen. The result was a new workforce increasingly dominated by unskilled and semiskilled labor. These developments dramatically reduced workers' bargaining leverage in contract negotations.

The Supreme Court added its imprimatur to the new arrangements by delivering a narrow definition of interstate commerce, in 1895's Knight Sugar decision, that effectively prohibited the federal government from blocking trust formation in manufacturing. As the Gilded Age drew to a close the proponents of new civilization built and largely administered by private businessmen appeared to have won the day. http://dig.lib.niu.edu/gildedage/narr8.html

Suffice it to say that when the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 10:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Gawd! You guys are economic babies! Don't you remember when the gold standard was the law of the land? It didn't stop Depressions, all it did was take money out of the hands of the poor. Surely you must recall Willima Jennings Bryan's call for an END to the gold standard, which represented the popular will of the people?
Quote:
Having behind us the producing masses of this nation and the world, supported by the commercial interests, the laboring interests and the toilers everywhere, we will answer their demand for a gold standard by saying to them: You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns, you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.
The problem is not the gold standard, fiat currency or any such. I'm way to busy to give y'all a his
tory of depressions, currencies valuations, and economic policies. (YOU might have noticed that this is a hobby of mine) Suffice it to say that when the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

Well, genius FFF.NET economist...Do you have a better system? If money can be created out thin air(based on nothing) how is that better than gold? No citizen(except for the bankers) can print money without going to prison(WHY?)...anyone can find gold...Makes it a little more even!!! Just be a slave to the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and the rest...Or vote Ron Paul..oops wouldn't matter anyway the elite have have been busy buying it up already...Think they see the end?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 10:42 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Currency is ALWAYS created out of thin air! As an earlier poster said, there is nothing intrinsically valuable about gold, or diamonds, or cowrie shells, or glass beads, or anything else you care to dream up. But what I think really bothers you is not the currency system itself as much as it is the control of the currency system by the Feds, or by other agents "up there" who look down on us mere mortals as we would look down on toiling ants.

In some senses, since the US dollar is openly traded in the FOREX (foreign exchange) The FED doesn't have as much control of the value of the dollar and money supply as you might think. But if the control of the currency system were to passed elsewhere or become more transparent, would that help?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 11:13 AM

OLDENGLANDDRY

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
Quote:
Kaneman-
This board is always at each other's throat(right were they want you) over politics.....The irony is... That most here drink from the same fountain of ignorance! If the average person would look into monetary policy and the creation of the FED, they would see that it is created from the elitists on both sides and division

it is a sad irony. these republicans can talk about cutting taxes and reducing government until theyre blue in the face, and itll still be completely hollow and meaningless until they reconsider our monetary system. its designed to create debt and big government. just look at the debt accrued under the Bush administration.. its not interest free, yet how are we to pay for it? there is never enough money in circulation... so the Fed will continue to print fiat money, which causes inflation. the reason a soda is no longer .05 cents is because our currency continues to be devalued, while the true wealth, the gold and silver, have been taken as collateral by private elite bankers. theyre the ones at the top of the pyramid pulling the strings for global government. what better then a single united currency by which to enslave people by?

There you go talking like a Socialist again.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 11:16 AM

"In some senses, since the US dollar is openly traded in the FOREX (foreign exchange) The FED doesn't have as much control of the value of the dollar and money supply as you might think. But if the control of the currency system were to passed elsewhere or become more transparent, would that help?"

I think you are wrong...If the money can be printed any time the fed absolutely has control over its value(simple supply and demand) regardless of where it's traded(surely you understand that!). Secondly, I would agree that Gold has no intrinsic value, but we have to start somewhere..Like the saying goes..."Gold doesn't grow on trees"... oops, that should read..."Money doesn't grow on trees unless the Fed says so"....Gold is king.....sooner than latter..BUY

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 12:01 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"If the money can be printed any time the fed absolutely has control over its value(simple supply and demand) regardless of where it's traded(surely you understand that!)"

I'd liken it to stocks. Once they've been issued the company has gotten their "value" in the form of capital. Though the company can and does try to influence its perception in the stock market and thus indirectly the value of its stock, it has no direct control over the trading value of the stock.

"Secondly, I would agree that Gold has no intrinsic value, but we have to start somewhere"

Gold has a use value - mostly in industrial and auto catalysts - and a supply that may or may not be manipulated. Should processes change so that gold is no longer in demand - as happened with silver when many places went from film to digital - its value would drop.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 12:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:

Well, genius FFF.NET economist...Do you have a better system? If money can be created out thin air(based on nothing) how is that better than gold? No citizen(except for the bankers) can print money without going to prison(WHY?)...anyone can find gold...Makes it a little more even!!!

You could also win the lotto, of course the chances of doing that are slim.

Quote:

Just be a slave to the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and the rest...Or vote Ron Paul..oops wouldn't matter anyway the elite have have been busy buying it up already...Think they see the end?

The gold standard debate is essentially monitary fetishism since it's possible to have a stable currency without the need to tie it to a commodity. I think you believe that tying the currency to gold in some way restricts the government from making poor decisions or spending more than it has, in fact neither of those things are true. If Governments needs money they can still finance programs with debt.

I do wonder something though that I've never heard an effective answer to. Let's assume that tomorrow the US converts to a gold standard but the rest of the world doesnt. The US will still need to receive none dollar foreign income at the same time it would be obliged to freely exchange dollars to gold. If no one else in teh world adopts a gold standard America would be giving out gold and receiving paper. That would in turn cause the value of the currency to rise while simultaneously reducing the amount of gold available for internal investment.

What happens then?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 12:05 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I think you are wrong...If the money can be printed any time the fed absolutely has control over its value(simple supply and demand) regardless of where it's traded(surely you understand that!).

I think there's a "yes, but ..." answer due here. It's like the housing market. Sure, we can build houses any time we want. And we can STOP building houses anytime we want too! But real estate values are affected by a lot more than whether houses are or aren't being built, just as the value of the US dollar is affected by more than whether money is or isn't being printed (although, in the long run, it does make a difference).

Let's say there's a glut of houses on the market. Home builders like KB Home stop building. But meanwhile, homeowners are trying to sell, sell, sell... flooding the market with homes. Home prices drop. The dollar is very much like that. It's held as investment (actually US Treasuries are held as investments, but since they are traded only in dollars it may as well be dollars) overseas by the LOT of nations. CHINA holds the highest amount of US govt paper. If for some reason people should decide to dump the dollar, it will come flooding out from nooks and crannies all over the world the the market will be swamped with paper, whether the Fed prints more $$$ or not.

Quote:
Secondly, I would agree that Gold has no intrinsic value, but we have to start somewhere..Like the saying goes..."Gold doesn't grow on trees"... oops, that should read..."Money doesn't grow on trees unless the Fed says so"....Gold is king.....sooner than latter..BUY

Been there. Done that. Not because I think gold has any "intrinsic" value, but simply because it's historically been used as a hedge against uncertainty in ALL currencies.

BTW- In the long run the "value" of a currency depends very much on the productivity of the economy behind that currency as well as the "amount" of currency in circulation.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 12:25 PM

SICKDUDE

Thanks, Fletch2 and SignyM! Very good points.

"Your gratuitous jello awaits." - Dr. Helen Magnus, Sanctuary

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 12:39 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I went to the website out of curiosity. Man, you are one sick dude all right.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 1:04 PM

Quote:
Oldenglanddry- There you go talking like a Socialist again.

thats sarcasm right? otherwise do tell.. IMHO its the 'system' thats socialist

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 1:11 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Oh, yeah

I forgot this part - sickdude calls himself such b/c here is where he works www.sickusa.com

So that makes him one 'sick' dude ... oh well, the people at work expect this of me at least ...

I'm fighting for lamest humor award.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 3:32 PM

FREMDFIRMA

How interesting, yer startin to scare me a little here Siggy... at least you haven't adopted random slams of profanity at our resident village idiots yet...

Not much I can add to this one, as what I know of economics would fit in a thimble with room to spare... but there's one thing that bothers me.

Folks call a corporation "Capitalist" and a Union "Socialist" - why ?

A corp is a collective devoted to getting maximum value and profit from their product, whatever it is.

A union is a collective devoted to getting maximum value and profit from their product, which is labor.

So why is ONE "socialist" and ONE 'capitalist" ?
I call bullshit.

The labor creates the product, but is also a product in and of itself and thus can and should be marketed like any other.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 4:10 PM

LEADB

Because there's no capital in labor; it's 'just' people. Capital is things like buildings and machines. Capitalist come along and create businesses, and they are kind enough to let folk work there.

Unions are Socialist because they benefit society, not Capitalists.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 5:30 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Frem, wazzup man? I don't understand why I'm starting to scare you.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 8:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
Quote:
Oldenglanddry- There you go talking like a Socialist again.

thats sarcasm right? otherwise do tell.. IMHO its the 'system' thats socialist

We've told you before Dreamtrove you can't just change the meaning of words to suit your bizare notions.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 9:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
The labor creates the product, but is also a product in and of itself and thus can and should be marketed like any other.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

The point about a capitalist system isnt that it produces goods for money -- folks have been doing that since agriculture allowed us the luxury of an artizan class -- it's a system where the person who owns the capital assets of a company, (ie money, factories and machines) is considered to be the dominant partner in an enterprise.

So it is the guy that put forward the capital that owns the business even if that capital has a value that is less than the value added by the workforce.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 11:48 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

BTW Kaneman, I get your point about the US Govt not having direct control of it's currency. Most nations have a central bank, and most central banks are national central banks which are a direct part of the government. Only a few nations have independent central banks like the USA. The concept is that an "independent" central bank will be less subject to short-term political pressure, but it is an unusual situation, limited to the EU, the UK, and the USA. In any case since even within the broad classifications of "independent" versus "national" bank, each bank does what it's laws tell it to do (loan money, control foreign exchange value, regulate the baking industry, print currency etc etc.) there are about as many kinds of "central banks" as there are nations.

AFA our (USA) government borrowing money- that is done by the Treasury Department, which really IS a part of the government. The government does not borrow directly from commercial banks, but writes its own bonds. I'd have to think some more about the significance of Kennedy's notion of the government printing it's own currency.

Frem- the difference between the two is "Who has the power?" and "How is the money distributed?". I'd like to get into a detailed discussion with you about it, since the question you ask is both perceptive and important.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 15, 2007 5:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
BTW Kaneman, I get your point about the US Govt not having direct control of it's currency. Most nations have a central bank, and most central banks are national central banks which are a direct part of the government. Only a few nations have independent central banks like the USA. The concept is that an "independent" central bank will be less subject to short-term political pressure, but it is an unusual situation, limited to the EU, the UK, and the USA. In any case since even within the broad classifications of "independent" versus "national" bank, each bank does what it's laws tell it to do (loan money, control foreign exchange value, regulate the baking industry, print currency etc etc.) there are about as many kinds of "central banks" as there are nations.

AFA our (USA) government borrowing money- that is done by the Treasury Department, which really IS a part of the government. The government does not borrow directly from commercial banks, but writes its own bonds. I'd have to think some more about the significance of Kennedy's notion of the government printing it's own currency.

Frem- the difference between the two is "Who has the power?" and "How is the money distributed?". I'd like to get into a detailed discussion with you about it, since the question you ask is both perceptive and important.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

Our government has almost no oversight. Why not print our own money? Because the bankers on Wall street would never allow that to happen. Coincidence or not, there are two dead presidents that said we should not allow this.

Secondly, is it even constitutional?

"The United States Constitution grants to Congress the authority to coin money and regulate the value of the currency. The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to delegate control over monetary policy to a central bank. Furthermore, the Constitution certainly does not empower the federal government to erode the American standard of living via an inflationary monetary policy." - Ron Paul

I guess what I'm getting at is... Why should we pay to have our own money? And at what cost?...short answer..Our income tax.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 15, 2007 6:20 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

It's something I should look into. But even if the government were to simply print money, in the end that only leads to inflation. I heard it used to be a rather common dodge of the monarchs when they ran short of money (gold and silver coin) they would pay in "clipped" coins... coins from which a bit of metal had been clipped from the edge. Everything worked well until they started getting clipped coins back as taxes. There's more than one way to debase a currency!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 15, 2007 7:30 AM

Yes there would be inflation, just as there is now, however at a much cheaper cost to the citizens. We would also have accountability and oversight. Look into Jekyll island meeting by Fed founders, pretty interesting.........

Senator Linburgh arguing against the FED Reserve act...

This is the Aldrich bill in disguise…The worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking bill…The banks have been granted the special privilege of distributing the money, and they charge as much as they wish…This is the strangest, most dangerous advantage ever placed in the hands of a special privilege class by any Government that ever existed. The system is private...There should be no legal tender other than that issued by the government…The People are the Government. Therefore the Government should, as the Constitution provides, regulate the value of money." (Congressional Record, 12/22/1913)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 15, 2007 7:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:

Our government has almost no oversight. Why not print our own money? Because the bankers on Wall street would never allow that to happen.

There is all kinds of irony that you of all people are arguing against an independent central bank. Isn't it part of the dogma you keep pushing that government isnt very good at doing anything? Why would you want them to have direct control of the currency? Wouldn't that make it as susceptable to government incompetance as anything else?

If corporate organization is the right way to provide your healthcare and educate your kids why not for a central bank?

In general independent central banks are seen to be more reliable than ones under direct government control. In part this is because it makes it harder for politicos to manipulate the economy for political gain.

Quote:

Secondly, is it even constitutional?

"The United States Constitution grants to Congress the authority to coin money and regulate the value of the currency. The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to delegate control over monetary policy to a central bank. Furthermore, the Constitution certainly does not empower the federal government to erode the American standard of living via an inflationary monetary policy." - Ron Paul

I think he basically misunderstands the situation. The constitution gave congress the right to mint currency it didn't say how it should do it. Once congress is given a right it doesnt have to ask permission as to how to use that right afterwards, just like you don't get to tell a friend how they can use the Christmas gift you gave them after the fact.

Now had the constitution had a clause like "Congress shall make no law establishing a central bank" the issue would be cut and dry but it didn't. In the real world people subcontract activities to other individuals all the time and it's generally accepted practice.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 15, 2007 8:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Secondly, is it even constitutional?

"The United States Constitution grants to Congress the authority to coin money and regulate the value of the currency. The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to delegate control over monetary policy to a central bank. Furthermore, the Constitution certainly does not empower the federal government to erode the American standard of living via an inflationary monetary policy." - Ron Paul

Ron Paul is an idiot. I guess he wants a printing press and a set of balances in the basement and have Congress handling things personally.

Is it Constitutional...yes...hmmm...well maybe we should look at that.

Article 1, sec.8 says "power to coin money" "regulate commerce among the several states" and so forth. What Paul and his Pirate-like friends miss is the very last clause under section 8. It reads: "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers...".

Thats the "necessary and proper" clause. Congress does not own a printing press or have loan officers or their own ATM's or time to count change when you cash your paychecks, or weigh/measure/cast coins and so on. In order to exercise their power it is necessary and proper for Congress to make laws that carry that power to execution. In this case its the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and all its related little buddies.

Oh...and just to hammer the point home, regulation of national bank operations is Congress' prerogative under the Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses, see Citizens Bank v. Alafabco, Inc., 539 U. S. 52, 58. Which is often cited, even as late as Justice Ginsburg last year in Watters v. Wachovia Bank, N. A.

So, to answer your real question...just how much is Ron Paul's opinion worth...the answer is he's worth his weight in crap.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 15, 2007 9:11 AM

"Congress does not own a printing press or have loan officers or their own ATM's or time to count change when you cash your paychecks, or weigh/measure/cast coins and so on. In order to exercise their power it is necessary and proper for Congress to make laws that carry that power to execution. In this case its the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and all its related little buddies."

My opinion hero, is that it makes absolutely no sense at all and there is no reason that control over our currency should have been handed over to international bankers. Also, before the Federal Reserve Act was passed we managed to have greenbacks printed without paying all that interest to the bankers. Why not cut out the middlemen that pillage our nation...The international bankers and the Wall street types that act as middleman between Fed and Gov.? Banks would still exist. There would be no shortage of atms(not like the Fed supplies them now anyway), no shortage of people to count change(not like the Fed counts it now anyway), and I'm pretty sure the Fed doesn't own any presses.

So, the only one worth his weight in crap is ..ah, you.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 15, 2007 10:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
My opinion hero, is that it makes absolutely no sense at all and there is no reason that control over our currency should have been handed over to international bankers.

Thats fine. Vote for candidates that agree with you and change the law. Simple as that. But don't say its unconstitutional...cause it is.

Quote:

Also, before the Federal Reserve Act was passed we managed to have greenbacks printed without paying all that interest to the bankers. Why not cut out the middlemen that pillage our nation...

That was the problem. Prior to the central bank system we had every little town bank in America printing its own money back by its own reserves. This made our currency wildly unpredicatable because why should an Ohio business want to honor currency drawn on a Wyoming Bank nobody has ever heard of and whose reserves may or may not exist?

International trade, finance, credit, and capital were becoming more and more a part of the modern economic system that accomponied the shift from an agricultural economy...a shift that started slow but by the early 1900s became pronouced and serious. Stable currency was needed and a central bank provided it.

Now the original intent of the FED was expanded in the 1930's by FDR in an attempt to use the central banks existing structure to restart the national banking industry and thus restore order to the countries economy. Many of your complaints about the power of the FED come from that era.

So I guess the question is, if not a central bank, then what would you prefer? Cause if we disband the FED all the money we have is worthless, so I suggest you have an alternative before you get rid of it. Otherwise a lot of folk will be going hungry and President Ron Paul will be up against a wall before the end of a week (although I suspect he'd like taking the whole nation down with him).

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 15, 2007 10:28 AM

FREMDFIRMA

You know the very last time america was debt-free was under the reign of president Andrew Jackson, yes ?

And why, because he struck down the first attempt by these Federalist->Whig->Republican assholes to stick us with a central bank like the Fed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bank_of_the_United_States
Jackson saw where that was goin, and wisely crushed that viper in its shell before it could wrap its coils around us and strangle our economy.

This has long been suspected as the cause for his attempted assassination, foiled by wet powder and Jacksons aides had to pull him off before he beat the poor bastard to death with his cane.

End result, no debt, and economic prosperity for the country, rather than feeding the rich at the expense of everyone else - and don't even get me started on Usury and the evils of paper/fiat money and 'letters of credit', Roger Sherman, one of our less known founding fathers, made that point in no uncertain terms in 1752, via a handbill titled "A Caveat against Injustice".
http://www.rogershermansociety.org/caveat.htm

Also worthy of reading is Sheldon Emry's treatist titled "Billions for the Bankers, Debts for the people" - available here.
http://www.bigeye.com/bankers.htm

I may not know much about economics, per se, but common sense and history brings it pretty clear that central banking and fiat money are a scam to concentrate as much money as possible, into the fewest hands possible, often at the expense of society in more ways than just financial.
The tale of the Eleventh Round outlines in the most basic form, the social impact of such a thing.
http://www.thetransitioner.org/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=The%20Eleventh
%20Round

I don't come at this from the top down mental angle of an economist, so I do NOT make any trained assumptions, I come at it sideways from the perspective of watching folks victimised by it.

Central banking, Taxes and Inflation have combined in a gestalt that makes our population not much more than indentured servants, tell me, why don't you - can you outright buy a car, a house, some land, on even a good decent wage, anymore ?

Nope, the ONLY manner in which to procure such necessities is to submit oneself to the debt-slavery of a bank, and in the doing pay company-store prices for the damned things, which is harsh enough, but then include the stealth tax of inflation, the massive tax burden, all the goddamn fees and red tape, and then the government sponsored mandatory monopoly of car insurance, and how much of YOUR income is really yours ? maybe an eighth, maybe less.

Don't wanna play the game ? try telling a prospective employer you don't own a car, see what it gets you.

It's a trap, and thanks to the collusion of the Fed, corporations, and central banking, it's a damned near inescapeable one, which destroys and ruins the commonfolk while enriching the established elite - not to mention most investments are just a high tech variation of pyramid or multi-level-marketing schemes, in which only the progenitors make any money.

Just because I don't have training in standard or austrian economics with related degree, doesn't mean I'm stupid or clueless - I know what Usury is, and how destructive a force it is, and while I may disagree intensely with socialists on almost every other point, I do share their bitter hatred of the american financial system cause of what it is, they hold prosperty up at one end as bait, and just keep cranking up the treadmill till you fall off, it's bullshit, is what it is.

Worst of all, when the rich elite stumble and fall, playing this vicious little game, they don't have to obey the rules, cause the FedGov comes and gives their money back - I'm *still* pissed over the S&L bailout.

It's like playin monopoly with someone whos every loss is replaced by the bank, it's not a winning game for YOU.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 15, 2007 11:22 AM

Here is a site that clearly shows the absurdity of a fiat system..

http://www.bigeye.com/bankers.htm

*edit*
oops.... Frem was already on this

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 15, 2007 1:18 PM

Quote:
Hero- Stable currency was needed and a central bank provided it.

oh i get it.. you're using doublespeak; by 'stability', you're really referring to the alleged 'safety net', which was so evident during the great depression(for example)..

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 15, 2007 1:21 PM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Here is a site that clearly shows the absurdity of a fiat system..

http://www.bigeye.com/bankers.htm

*edit*
oops.... Frem was already on this

I had a fiat once! It was a nice car!

---- plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose

Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre, Owner of a too big Turnippy smelling coat with MR scratched in the neck (thanks FollowMal!)

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 15, 2007 1:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
Quote:
Hero- Stable currency was needed and a central bank provided it.

oh i get it.. you're using doublespeak; by 'stability', you're really referring to the alleged 'safety net', which was so evident during the great depression(for example)..

BY "safety net" your talking about the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC):

"An independent agency of the federal government, the FDIC was created in 1933 in response to the thousands of bank failures that occurred in the 1920s and early 1930s. Since the start of FDIC insurance on January 1, 1934, no depositor has lost a single cent of insured funds as a result of a failure."

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 15, 2007 2:43 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

So, since the "sub-prime" domino is falling and other dominoes are tipping.... Can you say Savings & Loan bailout? Sure ya can. Fellow taxpayers, we're about to get hosed.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 15, 2007 4:07 PM

Quote:
Hero- BY "safety net" your talking about the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC):

"An independent agency of the federal government, the FDIC was created in 1933 in response to the thousands of bank failures that occurred in the 1920s and early 1930s. Since the start of FDIC insurance on January 1, 1934, no depositor has lost a single cent of insured funds as a result of a failure."

actually.. i was referring to the fractional reserve banking system of the Fed. its not peculiar to you that we experienced arguably our worst and most memorable depression on record, within a decade of the Feds implementation?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 15, 2007 5:11 PM

LEADB

So, if the US were to return to a gold standard; at today's prices, how much gold with the government need to acquire to back all the outstanding 'dollars' out there? And should the government do this, what would it do to the price of gold?

The Chinese currency is pegged to the dollar. It seems a silly thing to do in light of what sustains the dollar.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 15, 2007 5:21 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Meh, too far gone for such a radical solution now, they've have to ease back - and before doing that, I'd reccommend welding all the windows shut on wall street, otherwise you'd be unable to walk down the street for the rain of fatcat stockbrokers.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 15, 2007 6:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, since the "sub-prime" domino is falling and other dominoes are tipping.... Can you say Savings & Loan bailout? Sure ya can. Fellow taxpayers, we're about to get hosed.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

Actually there is a sure fire way to detect the next bubble and that's to watch the infomercials for the next big "get rich quick" scheme. Back in the dot com days it was "millions are being made on the internet" and recently it was the "no money down, get rich in real estate."

Bubbles happen because of speculation and that's driven by good old fashioned human greed. That's why economics is an art and not a science because the main movers are the passions of basic greedy human beings.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 16, 2007 2:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:

actually.. i was referring to the fractional reserve banking system of the Fed. its not peculiar to you that we experienced arguably our worst and most memorable depression on record, within a decade of the Feds implementation?

There are a lot of causes to the Great Depression. These include:

1. War debts from WWI (not so much the debts but rather their poor management by Republican leaders of that generation.
2. Uneven wealth distrubution of the '20s resulting in productivity greatly outpacing consumption.
3. Bank failures.
4. Stock market speculation caused by the availability of credit (this one you can lay on the banking system).
5. Tariff policies in the '20s that greatly hampered foriegn trade.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 16, 2007 3:25 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

So, just to be clear about this, are we all agreed that governments SHOULD be responsible for creating and maintaining a national currency? Anyone interested in proposing a totally private currency?

Going once... going twice...

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 16, 2007 4:21 AM