Economic chaos

Originally posted by Metal Brain
That is certainly true.

I think Ron Paul should make campaign ads about this. He is the only candidate that has been consistent about the Fed Reserve and the need for transparency. His Audit the Fed bill is popular with the American people even though other congressmen try to kill it every time by moving it to committee.

I don't know what more Dr. Paul and his son can do in this regard.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
We already did without it before 1913 and we were not like Somalia or any other 3rd world nation. Your analysis is flawed. Even so, nobody suggested ending central banking that I am aware of. Europe has central banking much like the FRS too. Look where it got them.

Do you even know what you are talking about?

Actually, the US in 1913 was much poorer than most developing nations today.

Actually, Europe does not have central banking "much like the FRS". The Eurozone does have a Central Bank, but its powers are much more limited than the FRS, and unlike the US, there is no fiscal union - there are no Eurozone bonds.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Actually, the US in 1913 was much poorer than most developing nations today.

Actually, Europe does not have central banking "much like the FRS". The Eurozone does have a Central Bank, but its powers are much more limited than the FRS, and unlike the US, there is no fiscal union - there are no Eurozone bonds.

The EU nations all have their own central banks, which similar to the FRS are linked to the IMF, and to each other. The FRS in spite of its apparent government connection, is not Federal and has no reserves. It is private, but with the appearance of being public. This is common with EU national banks such as Deutchebank.

Originally posted by normbenign
The EU nations all have their own central banks, which similar to the FRS are linked to the IMF, and to each other. The FRS in spite of its apparent government connection, is not Federal and has no reserves. It is private, but with the appearance of being public. This is common with EU national banks such as Deutchebank.

What? Deutsche Bank is a commercial bank, what does it have to do with the FRS?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Actually, the US in 1913 was much poorer than most developing nations today.

Actually, Europe does not have central banking "much like the FRS". The Eurozone does have a Central Bank, but its powers are much more limited than the FRS, and unlike the US, there is no fiscal union - there are no Eurozone bonds.

I said before 1913. The USA didn't have a central bank after A. Jackson killed the 2nd bank of the USA and didn't get one again until 1913.

The Bank of England is much like the FRS. Many other European countries are similar as well. The British installed central banks to their liking in countries they occupied after wars. Empires look after their own interests.

Originally posted by whodey
My quesiton is, is this chaos manufactured? After all, chaos brings crisis and crisis brings dramatic change and dramatic change brings anything you wish to lay on the table. 😉

Starting to sound like a Marxist there, whodey. My prediction is coming true. Sarah Palin will eventually lead the Communist Workers Party in America! Get in on the ground floor now while you can, comrade!

Originally posted by Metal Brain
I said before 1913. The USA didn't have a central bank after A. Jackson killed the 2nd bank of the USA and didn't get one again until 1913.

The Bank of England is much like the FRS. Many other European countries are similar as well. The British installed central banks to their liking in countries they occupied after wars. Empires look after their own interests.

What? Before 1913? The US was super wealthy in 1912, but then the Fed ruined everything?

The Bank of England is much like the FRS. Many other European countries are similar as well. The British installed central banks to their liking in countries they occupied after wars. Empires look after their own interests.

What's your point?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
What? Deutsche Bank is a commercial bank, what does it have to do with the FRS?

The Federal Reserve is a commercial bank too. It has a charter from the government to do certain things, and has a chairman appointed by government, but is still very much private.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
We already did without it before 1913 and we were not like Somalia or any other 3rd world nation. Your analysis is flawed. Even so, nobody suggested ending central banking that I am aware of. Europe has central banking much like the FRS too. Look where it got them.

Do you even know what you are talking about?

Clearly we need to return to 1913!!! (But why stop there? The Middle Ages were a paradise for workers - zero unemployment! (And the icky banking functions were performed only by the kind of people Ron Paul would be happy to eliminate - [and don't they know it!])

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
What? Before 1913? The US was super wealthy in 1912, but then the Fed ruined everything?

[b]The Bank of England is much like the FRS. Many other European countries are similar as well. The British installed central banks to their liking in countries they occupied after wars. Empires look after their own interests.

What's your point?[/b]

The point is that each of these "National Banks" have similar if not identical functionality to the Federal Reserve in the US. And they all have similar links to the IMF.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
What? Before 1913? The US was super wealthy in 1912, but then the Fed ruined everything?

[b]The Bank of England is much like the FRS. Many other European countries are similar as well. The British installed central banks to their liking in countries they occupied after wars. Empires look after their own interests.

What's your point?[/b]

After the Civil War and the Spanish American war you can't expect a super wealthy country, although taking colonies from the Spanish is kind of like acting like a wealthy nation.

After the Federal Reserve Act our country entered the great depression. Is that your idea of FRS success? As I recall, the FRS was supposed to stabilize the economy. So much for that theory.

Originally posted by TerrierJack
Clearly we need to return to 1913!!! (But why stop there? The Middle Ages were a paradise for workers - zero unemployment! (And the icky banking functions were performed only by the kind of people Ron Paul would be happy to eliminate - [and don't they know it!])

That's a chicken little argument. No one is saying return to the middle ages or even to 1913 in all respects.

That type of argument presumes that all of the progress of society since 1913 came as a result of the Federal Reserve system. We can only know what has happened, for good or evil, not what might have happened if........

Originally posted by normbenign
The point is that each of these "National Banks" have similar if not identical functionality to the Federal Reserve in the US. And they all have similar links to the IMF.

... still waiting for that point.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
After the Civil War and the Spanish American war you can't expect a super wealthy country, although taking colonies from the Spanish is kind of like acting like a wealthy nation.

After the Federal Reserve Act our country entered the great depression. Is that your idea of FRS success? As I recall, the FRS was supposed to stabilize the economy. So much for that theory.

I didn't say you could have "expected" a "super wealthy country". But the fact remains that the US in 1912 was dirt poor so the claim that things were fine before the Fed is a little silly to say the least.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I didn't say you could have "expected" a "super wealthy country". But the fact remains that the US in 1912 was dirt poor so the claim that things were fine before the Fed is a little silly to say the least.

Why do you insist on confining everything to within a year before the FRS? What about before the Civil War or before the Spanish American War?

That fact that you want to confine your examples to the 1910s says to me that your position is weak. I don't know what your definition of dirt poor is, but I tend to dispute that. If even it is true, I seriously doubt that our country was dirt poor throughout the 1800s after Jackson killed the bank. Maybe compared to modern day, but that was true everywhere.

At that time, dirt poor compared to who?