06 Apr 09
Originally posted by no1marauderabsolutely insufficient. like i said, people can change their mind and/or vote for something they may not personally believe in, for political reasons.
useless: Edit: still waiting for your non wiki links "proving" the founding fathers supported the first/second banks despite their quoted statements to the contrary.)
I presume that links showing that the Congress voted for the banks and the Presidents signed the legislation will be insufficient?🙄
You quote votes on a piece of paper.
I quote what they actually said.
If you look at the vote in the senate for the 1913 bill YOU would say that because the majority of senators voted for it, that must mean they wanted it. End of story.
I would point out to you that the vote took OVER 6 MONTHS to accomplish and it took a great deal of arm twisting to get the vote because alot of senators did NOT want it but ended up voting along party lines.
Still waiting...
06 Apr 09
1 edit
Originally posted by telerionYou posted while I did, and the publication which I have downloaded and already read a quarter of, does mention that after expenses the Fed returns 95% of its earnings back to Treasury, which in 2003 amounted to approximately
You are right. Technically the government does use debt to adjust the monetary base in FOMC meetings. The problem is that when the video talks of government debt, it implies it is the sort of government debt held by the general public so that it appears as if the Fed is somehow enslaving our government through perpetual debt. Since the Fed rebates back t the system).
You are correct though. And I was too loose with my statements in this post.
$ 22 Billion.
I'm having a nice morning adventure, reading about the market in balances at the Fed (who would have thought!) and the difficulties encountered by the FOMC in trying to set the fed funds rate and how the discount window operates when depositor banks who hold balances at the fed do a nice little juggling act between their required reserve balances, their contractual clearing balances and their excess reserves. Its a fascinating document and well worth a read (its only 147 pages long), but it gives an insight into how the fed system is designed to soak up shocks and uncertainties.
However I am not entirely convinced that some of the assertions made by our conspiracist friends are totally baseless either. I sat through 3.5 hours of money masters last night, and its not just that there's no smoke without fire, if this is such a benign system without any adverse influence of the indebtedness of America(ns) then why would a debt free scrip based on goods and demand for services not also work equally as well?
06 Apr 09
1 edit
Originally posted by uzlessMost people believe that it is what people do that matters, not what they say. Of course, you haven't even shown a single person that voted for or either President that signed the legislation didn't support it. Obviously you can't. The onus of proving that they didn't is on you as a public vote on an issue is usually considered pretty strong evidence as to what the voter's position on the bill in question is. Your suppositions to the contrary are moronic. But it's typical from childish conspiracy theorists to try to turn the normal rules of logical proof upside down.
absolutely insufficient. like i said, people can change their mind and/or vote for something they may not personally believe in, for political reasons.
You quote votes on a piece of paper.
I quote what they actually said.
If you look at the vote in the senate for the 1913 bill YOU would say that because the majority of senators voted for it, tha ...[text shortened]... se alot of senators did NOT want it but ended up voting along party lines.
Still waiting...
EDIT: As to George Washington:
Because he supported many of Hamilton's controversial fiscal policies--the assumption of state debts, the Bank of the United States, and the excise tax--Washington became the target of attacks by Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans.
http://sc94.ameslab.gov/TOUR/gwash.html
06 Apr 09
Originally posted by kmax87Just printing a fixed number of dollars and releasing them into the system and letting them circulate might work all right. Most monetary theory texts that I've seen teach students the intuition behind inflation, money supply/demand for money, and the purpose of money with exactly that sort of stylistic setup.
You posted while I did and the publication which I have downloaded and already read a quarter does mention that it returns 95% of all the money it makes back to Treasury, which in 2004 I think was about $ 22 Billion.
I'm having a nice morning adventure, reading about the market in balances at the Fed (who would have thought!) and the difficulties encounter ...[text shortened]... would a debt free scrip based on goods and demand for services not also work equally as well?
I guess my only question is if scrip could work just as well (and I'm not sure that it would since we haven't considered the practical administrative issues) what's the argument for changing from the current system, especially if we factor in the costs of switching?
06 Apr 09
Originally posted by telerionthe prefix "quasi" is a legal term.
(1:12) "All of our money is based on government debt."
This is not true. The government does not issue debt in order to print money. It simply creates dollars. Most of those dollars go into banks and get loaned out and redeposited multiple times. This causes the money supply to expand beyond the original injection of money. MM makes the mistake of c ...[text shortened]... ome good faith and provide well-constructed rebuttals to these criticisms.
the Fed like a lot of other entities are quasi governmental -- a mix of public and private attributes.
I would guess this MM has no concept of a quasi governmental institution.
06 Apr 09
Originally posted by no1marauderWait. If two infallible Founding Fathers disagree doesn't the universe explode?
Most people believe that it is what people do that matters, not what they say. Of course, you haven't even shown a single person that voted for or either President that signed the legislation didn't support it. Obviously you can't. The onus of proving that they didn't is on you as a public vote on an issue is usually considered pretty strong evidence as ...[text shortened]... tacks by Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans.
http://sc94.ameslab.gov/TOUR/gwash.html
06 Apr 09
3 edits
Originally posted by telerionAh, finally. A decent response.
It is not as though all the founding fathers distrusted banks. Alexander Hamilton was crucial to the founding of the First National Bank. Our monetary system would have been a real wreck if Jefferson (as much as I admire him in other ways) had been put in charge of it.
Personally, I see these quotes as indicating that they were less knowledgeable of b ...[text shortened]... any Western societies banking was considered a distasteful profession, well beneath a gentleman.
There may indeed be some merit to your supposition. Indeed, banking was frowned upon in those days by the upper class. Not always for strictly righteous reasons but nonetheless, frowned upon.
However, I find the tone, the sheer malice of the quotes to be somewhat out of place if people like Madison, Lincoln and Washington etc simply viewed banking as beneath them. To wit,..................
"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance.”
- James Madison
“If congress has the right under the Constitution to issue paper money, it was given them to use themselves, not to be delegated to individuals or corporations.”
- Andrew Jackson
“The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credits needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of consumers. By the adoption of these principles, the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity.”
- Abraham Lincoln
To me, there seems to be something more to it than just a disdain for the banking industry.
EDIT: a few more quotes for a quiet sunday pontification
“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.” –Thomas Jefferson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“REMOVED"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“The international bankers swept statesmen, politicians, journalists and jurists all to one side and issued their order with the imperiousness of absolute monarchs.” –Lloyd George, Former British Prime Minster
“The money power preys upon the nation in times of peace and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than the aristocracy, more selfish than the bureaucracy. It denounces, as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes.” –Abraham Lincoln
“This (Federal Reserve) Act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the president signs this bill, the invisible government by the monetary power will be legalized. The people may not know it immediately but the day of reckoning is only a few years removed, the worst legislative crime of the ages perpetrated by this banking bill.” –Charles A. Lindbergh, R-MN
“That is simple. In the Colonies we issue our own money. It is called Colonial Scrip. We issue it in proper proportion to the demands of trade and industry to make the products pass easily from the producers of the consumers. In this manner, creating for ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power, and we have no interest to pay to no one.” –Benjamin Franklin
06 Apr 09
Originally posted by uzlessThe second Jefferson quote is bogus (I gave a link showing that pages ago). In all probability, many of these quotes are phonies.
Ah, finally. A decent response.
There may indeed be some merit to your supposition. Indeed, banking was frowned upon in those days by the upper class. Not always for strictly righteous reasons but nonetheless, frowned upon.
However, I find the tone, the sheer malice of the quotes to be somewhat out of place if people like Madison, Lincoln and Washing ...[text shortened]... we control its purchasing power, and we have no interest to pay to no one.” –Benjamin Franklin
06 Apr 09
Originally posted by telerionMilton Friedman proposed this idea a while back. the cost factor and complexity involved in switching is indeed massive.
I guess my only question is if scrip could work just as well (and I'm not sure that it would since we haven't considered the practical administrative issues) what's the argument for changing from the current system, especially if we factor in the costs of switching?
I am not qualified to comment on a cost/benefit analysis. I put it to you and i leave it to you.
06 Apr 09
Originally posted by no1marauderoops, missed that one. Had to edit out a Wilson quote from one of the pages too.
The second Jefferson quote is bogus (I gave a link showing that pages ago). In all probability, many of these quotes are phonies.
But, unless you have proof the quotes are bogus, you shouldn't make such claims.
06 Apr 09
Originally posted by kmax87A clear reading of my posts should indicate I am not one of the conspiracists but rather I find myself, as you do, questioning why our system is the way it is. More to the point, why do we have the system we have now versus the system(s) we had in the past? How and why did the system evolve into what we see today?
However I am not entirely convinced that some of the assertions made by our conspiracist friends are totally baseless either. I sat through 3.5 hours of money masters last night, and its not just that there's no smoke without fire, if this is such a benign system without any adverse influence of the indebtedness of America(ns) then why would a debt free scrip based on goods and demand for services not also work equally as well?
These questions hold the most interest. Knowing where we came from usually explains where you are and where you are going.
06 Apr 09
1 edit
If anyone is secretly following this thread, this is the video in its entirety.
Get a comfy chair and a few bricks to throw at your computer screen when you hear something obviously wrong. But sit back, enjoy, and discover some things you may not have known. Just be advised not all documentaries are spot on. Just as An inconvenient Truth, Bowling for Columbine, Manufacturing Dissent, Zeitgeist, and Loose change all have their own shortcomings, you may be able to garner something worthwhile.
http://video.google.ca/videosearch?q=money+masters&hl=en&emb=0#
06 Apr 09
1 edit
Originally posted by telerionThe question I keep getting back to is, is this like thermodynamics or the conservation of energy/matter that states that it(energy matter) can neither be created nor destroyed but simply transformed from one state to another.
Just printing a fixed number of dollars and releasing them into the system and letting them circulate might work all right.
So for the money that would suggest that money is not created of of thin air, there is a debt instrument that substantiates its existence. The problem that the money masters people seem to have with that balanced equation is that the Fed is not the one being held liable for that debt, but the American taxpayer.
But then MM also asserts a Machiavellian attribute and role that the Fed plays in robbing the nations wealth and redistributing that wealth into the hands of nefarious *money changers*. It was a comforting enough simplistic bedside tale that enraged the German volk to rise up as one behind their Fuhrer to exact justice from the Jewish race, the host nation of that *international banking elite*.
The one question I can't seem to answer, is that if America's central bank is nothing but a front for facilitating a new world order/one world government, by what mechanism is it syphoning off this wealth into its own coffers? And has anyone been able to connect any Rothschild/Rockefeller/ *insert typical Jewish sounding suspect* with any arm of any of the regional Feds? MM steers clear of naming and shaming suggesting that it would be counter-productive. Given their estimation of the money changers power and pervasive influence, how do they think their simple plans of reform are going to come about?
Or is this world coup one where no obvious physical linkage is required, for the simple reason that those aforementioned banking elites by having their *men* appointed to all the positions of Board control due to their undeniably pervasive influence over all levels of public office and power, have more than enough direct control of the world through these central control points, such that even though it may not be proven that the Fed in and of itself actually profits directly from any of its activities or decisions, the banking elites who put forward the men who oversee its functions, by their control over these central clearing houses are only all to well placed with their own private institutions to fleece any wondering moneyed sheep that have been led astray by the purposed decisions of the apparently benign Fed.