Money Masters Part 1

Originally posted by kmax87
And has anyone been able to connect any Rothschild/Rockefeller/ *insert typical Jewish sounding suspect* with any arm of any of the regional Feds?

This chart may be of some use.

http://land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/federal_reserve.shtml

I make no claims as to its accuracy/up to datedness

Originally posted by kmax87
If money is created without a debt instrument does the world also de-materialize?

Nope. And this gets to your last post too. Money doesn't need to have anything material behind it to have value. All you need for money to valued is for people to have a demand to hold it. After all that's where the value for material goods comes from: our own demand. Couple that demand with supply and you get an implicit price.

People demand money because they believe that it can be exchanged at another time and place for something that they want. Try using the currency of Madagascar to buy gas in Athens, Georgia and you'll be rejected for sure. It says nothing about the gas clerks faith in the Malagasy government nor about the value of any material good or debt instrument that could be backing the Malagasy currency. The gas clerk has no demand* for it because he does not see himself exchanging it for goods in the future. Essentially the time costs and exchange premium he'd have to pay to exchange the Malagasy currency into US dollars make him insist on US dollars.

* - The gas clerk would probably still have some demand for the Malagasy currency since he may be able to exchange it through some online exchange business or at the very least travel to Madagascar to use the money. Imagine that if he was offered $10,000,000 US in Malagasy ariary, he would almost certainly take it.

Originally posted by telerion
Nope. And this gets to your last post too. Money doesn't need to have anything material behind it to have value.

Isn't this the biggest problem MM has with the notion of a quasi governmental organisation generating debt to the value of the money created to run an efficient economy?

If the money can be created as fiat currency free of debt anyway, and if people will maintain their confidence in that dollar simply because of their belief and trust in the resilience of the American monetary system and the nations way of life, then why on earth would anyone still entertain the current system that purports to provide stability in the marketplace and keeps a lid on inflation and unemployment but at a 100% imposte onto the public purse for every dollar put into circulation, then surely you would also have to ask why? Considering that Bretton Woods went the way of the Dodo and that without Gold backing the federal reserve note is tantamount to fiat currency anyway you would be excused if you were a rational person for thinking that it didn't make sense, or that something very rotten stank in the heart of Denmark.

Originally posted by uzless
This chart may be of some use.

http://land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/federal_reserve.shtml

I make no claims as to its accuracy/up to datedness

It seems it was tabled in Congress and even though that was back in 76, you would hardly think that any fundamental change in the ownership or sphere of control would have shifted far from those hands listed. As always, the usual suspects. Its interesting to see the Dulles Bros and their levels of influence given many conspiracist finger pointing in their direction given that Kennedy actually got Treasury started in minting its own non fed reserve backed currency.

Originally posted by kmax87
Isn't this the biggest problem MM has with the notion of a quasi governmental organisation generating debt to the value of the money created to run an efficient economy?

If the money can be created as fiat currency free of debt anyway, and if people will maintain their confidence in that dollar simply because of their belief and trust in the resilience o ...[text shortened]... inking that it didn't make sense, or that something very rotten stank in the heart of Denmark.

Personally, I don't see the big deal. The taxpayers pay to have a well-functioning monetary system. Who else is going to pay for it, right?

As for using securities to control the money supply rather than just circulating paper, my first thought would be if you didn't use T-bills in open market operations how would you propose to manipulate the supply of currency? I guess handing it out would be pretty easy, but how about taking it back out of circulation? How would you reduce the supply of money?

I don't mean that as a challenge to you, but rather I'm curious about it myself. From a theoretical standpoint, I see little difference between what the Fed does and a system with paper money and a tax citizens to pay for the central bank's costs. From a monetary policy perspective, my thought is "So what's the big deal?"

Originally posted by kmax87
The 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.

So for the money that would suggest that money is not created of of thin air, there is a debt instrument that substantiates its exi ...[text shortened]... ation is that the Fed is not the one being held liable for that debt, but the American taxpayer.

It's a wrong analogy because economies are not a closed (sub)system. Not even the global economy is. With innovation and the progress of technology, we are able to do more (or better) with the same resources than we would have some decades ago.

In that sense, it is the real economic growth which requires a constant expansion of the money supply, to avoid the growth hampering effects of deflation. To put it simple (although non-technically), if the amount of goods (and therefore transactions) in the economy was expanding but the money supply was not, then prices must eventually fall. Optimally, money supply should then accompany long-term growth with an extra (inflationary) buffer to avoid dips into deflation.

Regarding money creation, it is false that the Fed needs US debt to create money. Open market operations can (by the Federal Reserve Act, section 14) include dealings and loanings in gold or foreign government bonds. Like I said, US treasury bonds are the preferred instrument mostly because of their characteristics in terms of liquidity and risk.

Originally posted by Palynka
Regarding money creation, it is false that the Fed needs US debt to create money. Open market operations can (by the Federal Reserve Act, section 14) include dealings and loanings in gold or foreign government bonds. Like I said, US treasury bonds are the preferred instrument mostly because of their characteristics in terms of liquidity and risk.

There's the rub. Its not that it needs to, its that it does, and with every **buy up of Treasury paper to release more money into the system, there is a proportional amount of debt racked up by Treasury on behalf of the American people.

** The notion that the Fed buys Treasury paper with any of its 'reserves' is what rankles most it seems to the MMites. The only cost to the Fed in buying the paper is the release of currency into the system for which the fed only pays the cost of printing, which as I have already mentioned comes in at only 4 cents a note. When you consider the denomination size of notes typically printed for large scale cash injections into the system, then you can work out that the percentage that the Fed 'pays' for the privelege of managing your money is a little over 4/5ths of 5/8ths of one half of sweet fa.

Originally posted by kmax87
The only cost to the Fed in buying the paper is the release of currency into the system for which the fed only pays the cost of printing, which as I have already mentioned comes in at only 4 cents a note. When you consider the denomination size of notes typically printed for large scale cash injections into the system, then you can work out that the percentag ...[text shortened]... he privelege of managing your money is a little over 4/5ths of 5/8ths of one half of sweet fa.

If the Fed was not a quasi-governmental institution, but purely private, then of course it would be the scam of the millennium. But you could say that about taxation.

Originally posted by telerion
Personally, I don't see the big deal. The taxpayers pay to have a well-functioning monetary system. Who else is going to pay for it, right?

As for using securities to control the money supply rather than just circulating paper, my first thought would be if you didn't use T-bills in open market operations how would you propose to manipulate the supply ...[text shortened]... nk's costs. From a monetary policy perspective, my thought is "So what's the big deal?"

I mentioned before that money can be taxed out of existence.

That is how the money supply can be reduced in an alternative way. I'm not sure how efficient this is, but I'm just pointing out the option exists.

Originally posted by kmax87
It seems it was tabled in Congress and even though that was back in 76, you would hardly think that any fundamental change in the ownership or sphere of control would have shifted far from those hands listed. As always, the usual suspects. Its interesting to see the Dulles Bros and their levels of influence given many conspiracist finger pointing in their di ...[text shortened]... n that Kennedy actually got Treasury started in minting its own non fed reserve backed currency.

As with most consipiracy theories, they are routed in some level of fact. It's always the interpretation of those facts that are in question however.

Nonetheless, the charts definitely show who has control/influence/input into the goings on at the fed and absolutely adds fuel to the fire.

One cannot deny the apparent problems of objectivity of the Fed and the regional banks given those that are tied to it. Still, I make no conclusions at the present time. But, the Feds refusal to subject itself to audits is troublesome and should raise eyebrows. Ron Paul seems to be the only one pressing for clarity. (that I know of)

Originally posted by Palynka
If the Fed was not a quasi-governmental institution, but purely private, then of course it would be the scam of the millennium. But .

Perhaps you can help Kmax and I. How removed from private interests would you say the Fed is given this chart(s) explaining who the people are that are connected to the Fed?

http://land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/federal_reserve.shtml

Originally posted by uzless
Perhaps you can help Kmax and I. How removed from private interests would you say the Fed is given this chart(s) explaining who the people are that are connected to the Fed?

http://land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/federal_reserve.shtml

Explain that chart for me, will you?

It starts like this:
N.M. Rothschild , London - Bank of England

What is this supposed to mean?

Originally posted by Palynka
Explain that chart for me, will you?

It starts like this:
N.M. Rothschild , London - Bank of England

What is this supposed to mean?

All the charts are explained in the paragraph before them.

The first chart starts off..."Chart 1 reveals the linear connection between the Rothschilds and the Bank of England, and the London banking houses which ultimately control the Federal Reserve Banks through their stockholdings of bank stock and their subsidiary firms in New York"

Originally posted by uzless
All the charts are explained in the paragraph before them.

The first chart starts off..."Chart 1 reveals the linear connection between the Rothschilds and the Bank of England, and the London banking houses which ultimately control the Federal Reserve Banks through their stockholdings of bank stock and their subsidiary firms in New York"

Please spell it out for me. What does the first line:

"N.M. Rothschild , London - Bank of England"

mean?

Originally posted by Palynka
Please spell it out for me. What does the first line:

"N.M. Rothschild , London - Bank of England"

mean?

um, it's the starting point for the chart dude. Follow the dashed lines around to see how everyone is connected.

It's a little ungainly but you can do it if you take your time. Or, they list their government document sources if you prefer to go there.