Central Banking Doesn't Work---Says The FEDERAL RESERVE by out2theblack

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Central Banking Doesn't Work---Says The FEDERAL RESERVE

POSTED BY: OUT2THEBLACK
UPDATED: Sunday, February 7, 2010 13:46
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1017
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, February 2, 2010 11:37 AM

"...It is still a tiny minority who understand that central banking is a collectivist institution that is completely hostile to liberty. It is, by definition, an instrument of theft that purports to stabilize economic conditions for the collective by controlling the supply of money and credit. The fact that its only means to attempt to do so is to steal from savers to finance well-connected borrowers is a seldom-mentioned detail. That people only use the central bank’s currency because they are forced to do so by legal tenders laws is a fact that is spoken of even less. In this late stage of the Age of Government, the rights to liberty and property are expendable as our rulers “get the work of the American people done.”

Hopefully, the question of whether there should be a Federal Reserve will be on the table soon. However, once one concedes the existence of the Fed, there is a further question to ask: Can it do what it purports to do?

According to the Federal Reserve’s website, its mission is as follows:

Today, the Federal Reserve's duties fall into four general areas:

• conducting the nation's monetary policy by influencing the monetary and credit conditions in the economy in pursuit of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates

• supervising and regulating banking institutions to ensure the safety and soundness of the nation's banking and financial system and to protect the credit rights of consumers

• maintaining the stability of the financial system and containing systemic risk that may arise in financial markets

• providing financial services to depository institutions, the U.S. government, and foreign official institutions, including playing a major role in operating the nation's payments system[1]

Of these four stated goals, the first is the most expansive in its scope. Let us leave it until last. The second, to ensure the soundness of the banking system, seems to have been answered by history. Since the Fed’s launch in 1914, the nation has suffered banking crises in every generation that have dwarfed the Panic of 1907 or any of its predecessors. In addressing the Great Depression, the Savings and Loan Crisis, and the 2008 Meltdown, the Federal Reserve’s only answer has been, “Without the Fed, it would have been much worse.” History is not on the Fed’s side. Only a general ignorance of the facts allows the Fed to keep fooling most of the people most of the time.

Refuting the third stated goal is so easy it’s almost embarrassing. For those not trying to regain their seats after falling on the floor laughing, I need only to point out 30-1 leveraging, $60 trillion (or more?) in derivatives [2], or the subprime mortgage disaster. I believe that to go any farther would be, to borrow a football analogy, "piling on."

In fact, Alan Greesnpan's now famous (or infamous) mea culpa on the "flaw" in his beliefs about the self-regulating nature of financial markets effectively amounts to the Fed admitting that it has failed in goals two and three. If the "Maestro" himself doesn't speak for the Federal Reserve, then who does?

Regarding that fourth goal, one is tempted to give this one to the Fed. The important objection would be of the "should they" rather than of the "can they" variety. The fact that the Fed provides these services with an exclusive monopoly and claims only that it will play a “major role," rather than a positive one, makes this the least significant of the four.

That leaves the first goal, which is stable prices, full employment, and moderate long term interest rates. There can be no doubt that the promises of stable prices and full employment in particular are now the principle justifications for the existence of the Federal Reserve. Almost exclusively, when the subject of the Fed comes up, these two goals are discussed. Even the Fed chairmen themselves, when testifying before Congress, often state these two goals exclusively in describing the Fed's overall mission.

It should not be forgotten that until the late 1970's, full employment was not part of the Fed's mandate. Even using the logic of central banking proponents, these two goals are mutually exclusive of one another. Since the only means the Fed has at its disposal to try to achieve full employment is expansion of the supply of money and credit, which puts upward pressure on prices, the Fed must balance these two goals to try to find the optimum level of money and credit where everyone is employed but prices remain stable.

Ironically, the best source of information on the Fed's performance in terms of its principle goal for the first sixty years of its existence (price stability) is the Fed itself. Among the collections of historical data on the Federal Reserve of Minneapolis website, there can be found a table documenting price inflation rates for every year since 1800 (Appendix A of this article). There, one can see for oneself whether or not the Fed provided price stability during any period in its existence.

The first fact that jumps off of the page is the stark difference in the trends before and after the creation of the Fed. For the period from 1800-1913, the general price level (a statistic that Austrian economists object to) was cut almost in half. In other words, products that on average cost $100.00 in 1800 would only cost $58.10 in 1913 (Appendix A). While there were some years where prices rose, prices generally fell overall during the entire 19th century.

This would probably be a startling revelation to most modern Americans. There isn't an American alive whose parents or grandparents haven't remarked at current price levels and gone on to say, "When I was your age, I only paid a dime for that." As unbelievable as it might seem, that conversation would have been exactly the opposite in 1890. Grandpa would instead be saying, "When I was your age, I had to pay a lot more for that." Today, Americans resign themselves to constantly rising prices as a fact of life. However, that is a phenomenon that has only occurred since the creation of the Fed.

In contrast to the century preceding the Fed, the century following has seen exactly the opposite result. Those same products whose average price had fallen from $100.00 in 1800 to $58.10 in 1913 rose to $1,265.14 in 2008. That is an increase of over 2,000%!

Without addressing the subject of which result is "better for society," inflation or deflation, the data speak directly to the question of "price stability." From 1800-1913, the average annual fluctuation in price was 3.4%. From 1914-2008, the average annual fluctuation in price was 4.5%, a 33% increase over the previous period. In fact, the numbers for the Fed would be far worse if the same methods used to calculate the price inflation rate were used for the entire period from 1914-2008. In the 1990’s, several changes were made to the methodology used to calculate the Consumer Price Index. They all have the effect of lowering the price inflation rate given a particular set of price data.

Regarding the goal of "full employment," the Fed's results are also poor. Similar to that of the CPI, the methodology for calculating the unemployment rate was also changed in the 1990's. These changes in methodology, which include no longer counting "discouraged workers," lower the unemployment rate from what it would be for the same data if calculated using the old methodology. Despite this handicap, the Fed still fails to achieve positive results. The average annual unemployment rate in the U.S. between 1948 and 1978 was 5.1% (see Appendix B). Even without compensating for the changes in methodology during the 1990’s, the average annual unemployment rate in the U.S. between 1979 and 2009 was 6.1%. So, unemployment was almost 20% higher during the period that the Fed actively tried to manage it than it was during the prior 30 years.

Once you undo the methodological changes in calculating price inflation and unemployment that were put in place in the 1990’s, the Fed’s results on price stability and unemployment get much uglier. Nevertheless, even after the Fed fudges its own numbers it still comes out a failure. Everyone can remember the ne’er-do-well from school that cheated on tests and still couldn’t pass. Would we want that kid managing the entire economy?

The arguments that the Fed makes to justify its existence are fraught with false assumptions. One is that “stable prices” are a good thing. Remember, the industrial revolution occurred amidst steadily falling prices. It was this period of steady deflation (gasp!) that saw the common people become the prime market for society’s output - for the first time in human history. It was this period that saw the United States transform itself in a matter of decades from an indebted hodgepodge of former colonies to a world economic power. The natural result of economic progress and increased productivity is falling prices. That is what raises the standard of living for the great majority of society.

However, the most absurd assumption underlying the arguments for the Fed is one common to all collectivist arguments: that there is some strange entity called “society” whose needs outweigh the rights of every individual that comprises it. Every citizen surrenders his right to liberty to legal tender laws because being forced to use the Fed’s fraudulent notes as currency supposedly benefits “society.” He surrenders his right to property in letting the Fed steal his savings silently through inflation for the same reason. In the end, however, the Fed fails to achieve its “societal” goals of full employment and stable prices, so he gives up his rights for nothing. Isn’t time he took them back? There is a way:
End the Fed."

http://thomasmullen.blogspot.com/2010/01/central-banking-doesnt-work-j
ust-ask.html

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

Tuesday, February 2, 2010 12:05 PM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

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

Wednesday, February 3, 2010 8:50 AM

OUT2THEBLACK

'Legendary historian Eustace Mullins dies

Legendary author of hundreds of books and pamphlets demolishing the lies of warmaking mainstream media, historian Eustace Mullins died Tuesday, Feb. 2, at the home of his caretaker in a small town in Texas.

Mullins, who would have been 87 in March, suffered a stroke three weeks ago in Columbus, Ohio. He had been on an extended tour of his admirers for much of the past year, visiting and chatting with many of his thousands of fans who jumped at the chance to buy his books from him in person.

The author of such incendiary books as “Secrets of the Federal Reserve,” “Murder by Injection,” and “The Curse of Canaan,” Mullins was harrassed by the FBI for almost a half century, and had one of his books burned in Germany in the 1950s. These stories are recounted in one of his books, “A Writ for Martyrs.”

A protege of the imprisoned patriotic poet Ezra Pound, Mullins compiled a well-researched corpus of works that detailed the passage down through time of a hereditary group of banker killers who have essentially ruled the world from behind the scenes since ancient times.

“Eustace Mullins was the greatest political historian of the 20th century, and not just because he was not beholden to the power structure that deters candid reports about significant events, but because, guided by the greatest poet of the 20th century who was imprisoned for broadcasting for peace, his meticulous research eventually uncovered virtually every political secret of the last 400 years,” said Internet essayist John Kaminski of Mullins’ passing.

“It’s a pity so many people are afraid to believe what Mullins told them, because it was much more of the truth than has ever been seen in our schools or our media,” Kaminski added.

Funeral arrangements and appropriate memorial information have yet to be released.'

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

Wednesday, February 3, 2010 8:56 AM

OUT2THEBLACK

Government cannot create real jobs--

First it would have to create the Constitutionally-mandated 'REAL MONEY'...

http://whiskeyandgunpowder.com/government-cannot-create-real-jobs/

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

Wednesday, February 3, 2010 9:48 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Are you as much a super-genius expert on banking as you claim to be on radar?

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

Friday, February 5, 2010 8:50 AM

OUT2THEBLACK

Mr. Mullins was the Real and Original super-genius on the subject of the Federal Reserve , and he learned much about the actual order of things from Ezra Pound . Fortunately , they've done much to educate ordinary Folk by the scores of thousands on this very subject...

Here's a column that lays out some True Facts , for them as are able to apprehend :

' Tuesday, February 2, 2010

The True State of the Union: We Have No Rights Whatsoever

It has been almost a week since President Obama gave his first State of the Union address, and it has been analyzed from the left, right, center, front, and back. Of course, the speech is really about the performance of the federal government, particularly its wonderful accomplishments under the leadership of the sitting president. This is not peculiar to the Obama presidency. As far back as Jefferson, presidents have used the Constitutionally-mandated stump speech to do a little self-promotion, although what they promote has certainly changed quite dramatically.

However, if the speech is supposed to reflect the accomplishments of the federal government, then we should expect that it will contain specifics about how that government has fulfilled its purpose, which is, as we all know, to secure our rights. At least that’s what our founding document tells us. Therefore, if a president is going to do a little bragging about what a great job he has done, it would be logical to assume that we would hear particulars about the way in which he has secured our rights. Logic, however, has little to do with the machinations of leviathan.

In fairness, President Obama did begin his speech with a few remarks about the actual state of our country - a state of economic devastation and unending war. The fact that both of these afflictions have been caused wholly by our federal government is something that seems to have gone right by him, although he is not unique in that respect, either. Having reminded us about how bad things are, he dutifully lays as much blame as possible on the president that preceded him (another time-honored tradition when succeeding a president of the opposing party). He then moves right into trumpeting his accomplishments.

The president explains how he hit the ground running after taking over during the financial crisis, which began during the last year of the Bush administration. He takes pride in the fact that he supported the bank bailouts over the wishes of the American people, because when he ran for president, he “promised he wouldn’t just do what was popular,” he would do “what was necessary.” I don’t remember that particular campaign promise, although I do remember him promising to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States” or something to that effect. I suppose you can’t expect him to keep them all.

President Obama justifies his first initiative as president as follows:

“And if we had allowed the meltdown of the financial system, unemployment might be double what it is today. More businesses would certainly have closed. More homes would have surely been lost.”

Perhaps the president is correct on this. Perhaps he is not. However, there is one consideration that seems wholly missing from his thought process. Do the people whose money was taken to “stabilize the financial system” have any rights? By what authority was their money confiscated, even if it were for “the good of all?” Majority vote?

The president next goes on to extol the virtues of the first policy that was wholly his own. He says that his administration “extended or increased unemployment benefits for more than 18 million Americans; made health insurance 65 percent cheaper for families who get their coverage through COBRA; and passed 25 different tax cuts... As a result, millions of Americans had more to spend on gas and food and other necessities, all of which helped businesses keep more workers. And we haven't raised income taxes by a single dime on a single person. Not a single dime.”

This seems to be a mixed message. The part about extending unemployment benefits and making health insurance cheaper seems like more wealth redistribution. However, he also mentions tax cuts that saved jobs and let people keep more of their own money. One might have been led to believe that he actually secured the right to property here, at least for some of his constituents. Then came the punch line.

“The plan that has made all of this possible, from the tax cuts to the jobs, is the Recovery Act. That's right -– the Recovery Act, also known as the stimulus bill. Economists on the left and the right say this bill has helped save jobs and avert disaster. But you don't have to take their word for it. Talk to the small business in Phoenix that will triple its workforce because of the Recovery Act. Talk to the window manufacturer in Philadelphia who said he used to be skeptical about the Recovery Act, until he had to add two more work shifts just because of the business it created. Talk to the single teacher raising two kids who was told by her principal in the last week of school that because of the Recovery Act, she wouldn't be laid off after all.”

It is ironic that one of the examples that the president cites is a window manufacturer. Those few lucid economists who are not among those “on the left and the right” who agree wholeheartedly with the stimulus bill certainly would have been unable to avoid recalling Frederic Bastiat’s “broken window fallacy.” It is the absurd reasoning that Bastiat exposes in his famous essay, “What is Seen and What is Not Seen,” that underlies the entire “stimulus” strategy. Occasionally, this has been pointed out in public debates over these programs. However, there is one question that has not even been asked by President Obama’s most vitriolic Republican opponents. Do the people who were forced to fund the Recovery Act have rights?

President Obama implies that his wonderful largesse was accomplished without taxing anyone, but this is absurd. It may be true that he has not had a tax increase passed in the Congress, but the funding for the Recovery Act can only come from one place. For the portion that was borrowed by the U.S. government from other nations, that money will eventually have to be paid back. The government only has one official source of revenue – taxation. The fact that those who will pay the taxes to underwrite the Recovery Act may not be born yet (although I don’t personally believe that Washington has that much time left) doesn’t change the fact that they will be forced to pay it back.

There is also an “unofficial” source of revenue for the government, and that is inflation. For the portion of the Recovery Act debt that the Federal Reserve merely monetizes, it is no less taxation than is an appropriation from the Treasury. It is merely a more insidious form of taxation, one that does not look its victim in the eye, but rather steals from him silently through depreciation of a currency that he is forced to use by the government. Whether by official or unofficial means, there are individuals whose money will be confiscated by the government so that others may keep their jobs. Again, I ask, do those individuals have rights?

It should not go without mention exactly who these people are whose jobs have been saved by the Recovery Act. According to the president, “there are about two million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed. Two hundred thousand work in construction and clean energy; 300,000 are teachers and other education workers. Tens of thousands are cops, firefighters, correctional officers, first responders. And we're on track to add another one and a half million jobs to this total by the end of the year.”

Is there anyone among these two million that are not government employees? Perhaps the construction workers, although I’d bet they are working solely on government contracts. In any case, they are all on the receiving end of the taxation, necessitating that others must be taken from in order for them to receive.

The whole concept of the government “saving or creating jobs” is one whose injustice seems to elude everyone. That is probably because a century of “progressive” ideas has completely befuddled us about what a job really is. A job is a contract between a buyer and a seller. The employee is the seller, who sells his services to an employer for a mutually agreed upon price – his wages. This contract is one that both parties enter into voluntarily. The employer purchases the services because he is willing and able to do so. The employee sells for precisely the same reasons. Each has a right not to enter into the agreement, or to terminate it anytime he wishes.

However, when the government “saves or creates jobs,” it completely overrides the voluntary nature of this arrangement. If an employer is no longer willing or able to continue to purchase the services of an employee, the government has only one means at its disposal to change that outcome: brute force. It uses this force to confiscate the property of other people and thereby force them to purchase the services of the employee, since the employer is no longer willing or able to do so himself. The government claims it has saved a job, but it certainly has not secured any rights. In fact, it has acted counter to its purpose. It has destroyed the rights that it exists to protect.

It is the same evil at work in the president’s call for “health care reform.” As part of his plans to “improve the system,” the government will not only annihilate the right of property but liberty as well. While taxing some in order to pay the doctor bills of others, the federal government will ensure that no one can even conscientiously object. Every American will be required to purchase insurance from one of the government’s pet corporations, regardless of whether they want to or not. This amounts to a mandatory fee paid to the government merely for the privilege of being alive. Once the right to property is destroyed, the rights to liberty and even to life are destroyed with them.

Without repeating the analysis for every program that the president described, they all rest upon the same logic. There is some mysterious entity called “society” whose needs outweigh the rights of every individual that comprises it. In fact, it is apparent from the president’s speech (and those of most of his predecessors) that the federal government recognizes no rights of any individual whatsoever. Sadly, there are not many among the citizenry who think any differently. So long as representatives have been democratically elected, their power knows no bounds and recognizes no rights.

America was founded upon exactly the opposite idea. The reason that the U.S Constitution guarantees every American “a Republican form of government,” rather than a democratic one, is precisely because its framers believed that individual rights cannot be voted away. We cannot vote ourselves a right to other people’s property, not even to save millions of jobs (although it is really not possible to do so anyway). We cannot vote away another’s liberty, not even to lower health care costs for those who cannot afford it (although this will not work either). This was the central principle upon which our nation was founded – that we are endowed by our creator with unalienable rights. A pure democracy does not recognize these rights.

Progressives promote the idea that “taxation without representation” was the chief injustice that led to the American Revolution. This is convenient to their agenda, because they go on to justify any tax levied by a democratically-elected body on the grounds that those being taxed were represented in that body.

Of course, this begs the question, "Why did the founders specifically instruct Benjamin Franklin not to under any circumstances accept an offer of representation for the colonies in the British parliament?” Perhaps we should be so wise. Secession anyone? '

http://thomasmullen.blogspot.com/2010/02/true-state-of-union-we-have-n
o-rights.html

For other Folk paying attention , Squicko seems to have overlooked that he got taken to school about his local TV stations' use of NEXRAD Doppler feeds :

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=41552

Here's a thread where Squicko got taken to school on the subject of Captain Mal's choice of sidearm , a subject which has been discussed on this very forum on numerous prior occasions :

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=2&t=41709#top

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Are you as much a super-genius expert on banking as you claim to be on radar?

Ironic .

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

Friday, February 5, 2010 9:10 AM

KWICKO

Was that the same radar thread where you got your ass totally handed to you by Mal4Prez, and ran away and haven't been back, after lying about your "expertise" in such systems? Were you talking about THAT thread?

As for the sidearm thread, yeah, I screwed that one up. I notice you had nothing to offer at all in that thread, though, and when corrected, I readily acknowledged the mistake and thanked the poster for the corrected info - both of those are things you would NEVER do, no matter what; instead, you'll run away and hide, or just flat-out lie, like you always do.

Do I really need to dig up the threads with your blatant lies followed by your running and hiding when I called you on them? There were quite a few of them, as I recall.

As usual, Out2Lunch is talking OutHisAss.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

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

Friday, February 5, 2010 9:48 AM

GINOBIFFARONI

With the reappointment of Bernanke I doubt we will see any real changes to the Fed, or even to the banking regulations in general...

http://en.mercopress.com/2010/02/05/bernanke-reaffirms-fed-s-independe
nce-to-ensure-public-confidence-and-stability

If Obama really wanted change, maybe Ron Paul as head of the Federal Reserve ?

Bet that would cause many sleepless nights to alot of people who have them coming...

Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

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

Friday, February 5, 2010 11:33 AM

KWICKO

Quote:
If Obama really wanted change, maybe Ron Paul as head of the Federal Reserve ?

Bet that would cause many sleepless nights to alot of people who have them coming...

Goddamn right it would! And that's EXACTLY why Obama should do it. And exactly why he won't - 'cause he'd be one of the sleepless ones.

Hell, he probably even KNOWS it's the thing to do, but he still won't do it, and that's why I've lost so much respect for him. He seems to be spending too much of his time acting against his own better judgment, and acting against our interests as a nation, and acting against the PEOPLE'S interests.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

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

Friday, February 5, 2010 11:49 AM

OUT2THEBLACK

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Was that the same radar thread where you got your ass totally handed to you by Mal4Prez, and ran away and haven't been back, after lying about your "expertise" in such systems? Were you talking about THAT thread?

As for the sidearm thread, yeah, I screwed that one up. I notice you had nothing to offer at all in that thread, though, and when corrected, I readily acknowledged the mistake and thanked the poster for the corrected info - both of those are things you would NEVER do, no matter what; instead, you'll run away and hide, or just flat-out lie, like you always do.

Do I really need to dig up the threads with your blatant lies followed by your running and hiding when I called you on them? There were quite a few of them, as I recall.

This thread :

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=41552

...where MalFormedPerson stumbled in waving her alleged 'credentials'...

And where I said exactly nada concerning my own...

And regarding the sidearms , there was no need for me to say anything about Mal's weapon , 'cause it has been discussed so thoroughly over the years , besides which , someone kinda beat me to it , anyway...What'd you think I should've done , piled on and rubbed it in , the way you ultra-lib neo-f*CkedHards do ?

Facts never have been your strong suit ; you have quite a ways to go with that , and the application of some scientific method...

Yeah , duuude , go dig another hole , looking up some old threads , then fall in...

Meanwhile , you can apply for your Internet Driver's License , 'cause you know your pResident likes that sort of thing...

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100204/1925188060.shtml

'...He also called for a "driver's license" for internet users.

"If you want to drive a car you have to have a license to say that you are capable of driving a car, the car has to pass a test to say it is fit to drive and you have to have insurance."

These are the kind of ideas people have when they haven't bothered to think through the consequences of what they're saying...'

http://motherjones.com/politics/2009/04/should-obama-control-internet

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

Friday, February 5, 2010 12:34 PM

KWICKO

Sure thing, hot shot. And you've NEVER gone back and edited your posts after the fact to change what you actually said, have you?

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

Saturday, February 6, 2010 7:45 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
If Obama really wanted change, maybe Ron Paul as head of the Federal Reserve ?

Bet that would cause many sleepless nights to alot of people who have them coming...

Gawd, what a WONDERFUL idea! We may disagree on some things, but on that, I would ADORE to see him in charge...or even as advisor, tho' that wouldn't do much given how much people in government usually listen to advisors...

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

Saturday, February 6, 2010 10:28 AM

OUT2THEBLACK

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Sure thing, hot shot. And you've NEVER gone back and edited your posts after the fact to change what you actually said, have you?

Nope...Never needed to change what I've actually said ; that's a tactic for chronic purveyors of prevarication such as you are...

Very liberal of you .

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

Saturday, February 6, 2010 11:38 AM

OUT2THEBLACK

http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/Secrets_of_the_Fede
ral_Reserve/world_war_one-8.htm

' "Money is the worst of all contraband." -William Jennings Bryan

...It is now apparent that there might have been no World War without the Federal Reserve System. A strange sequence of events, none of which were accidental, had occurred. Without Theodore Roosevelt's "Bull Moose" candidacy, the popular President Taft would have been reelected, and Woodrow Wilson would have returned to obscurity.* If Wilson had not been elected, we might have had no Federal Reserve Act, and World War One could have been avoided. The European nations had been led to maintain large standing armies as the policy of the central banks which dictated their governmental decisions. In April, 1887, the Quarterly Journal of Economics had pointed out:

"A detailed revue of the public debts of Europe shows interest and sinking fund payments of $5,343 million annually (five and one-third billion). M. Neymarck's conclusion is much like Mr. Atkinson's. The finances of Europe are so involved that the governments may ask whether war, with all its terrible chances, is not preferable to the maintenance of such a precarious and costly peace. If the military preparations of Europe do not end in war, they may well end in the bankruptcy of the States. Or, if such follies lead neither to war nor to ruin, then they assuredly point to industrial and economic revolution." '

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

Sunday, February 7, 2010 1:46 PM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Sure thing, hot shot. And you've NEVER gone back and edited your posts after the fact to change what you actually said, have you?

Nope...Never needed to change what I've actually said ; that's a tactic for chronic purveyors of prevarication such as you are...

Very liberal of you .

Uh-huh. Never felt the need to back up what you said, either, did you?

By the way, you misspelled "they" in that post. Or are you going to accuse me of doing a "post-edit" on your quote again, IN YOUR POST?

I notice you've changed it since then. So again you're lying. But we're used to that from Republicans like you. ;)

It's not just that you're a lying schmuck; it's that you're so very bad at it.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

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

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE