http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYNVNhB-m0o
Fuckin' banksters. I mean, that's a lot of money, to, er, misplace, imho.
Fuckin' banksters. I mean, that's a lot of money, to, er, misplace, imho.
Federal Reserve is Missing 9 Trillion Dollars.
- Thread starter Diana Hignutt
- Start date
More fun facts about the Fed:
In 1881 President James Garfield said, "Whoever controls the volume of money in our country is absolute master of all industry and commerce and when you realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate." -President James Garfield 1881
Two weeks later Garfield was also shot and killed by an assassin.
Now we leep to 1963 President John F. Kennedy issued
Executive Order 1110. It resended the authority of the Federal Reserve to issue paper money.
Kennedy ordered the Treasury to begin printing debt free money. His order gave the treasury the power "...to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury."
-President John F. Kennedy
Yeah, we know what happened to him.
Most people don't know that the U.S. Federal Reserve is as much a government entity as Federal Express.
Putting on my tinfoil hat: The banksters are the enemies of humanity.
An interesting side note. The Federal Reserve's charter runs out on Dec. 23, 2012. Cue spooky music.
In 1881 President James Garfield said, "Whoever controls the volume of money in our country is absolute master of all industry and commerce and when you realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate." -President James Garfield 1881
Two weeks later Garfield was also shot and killed by an assassin.
Now we leep to 1963 President John F. Kennedy issued
Executive Order 1110. It resended the authority of the Federal Reserve to issue paper money.
Kennedy ordered the Treasury to begin printing debt free money. His order gave the treasury the power "...to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury."
-President John F. Kennedy
Yeah, we know what happened to him.
Most people don't know that the U.S. Federal Reserve is as much a government entity as Federal Express.
Putting on my tinfoil hat: The banksters are the enemies of humanity.
An interesting side note. The Federal Reserve's charter runs out on Dec. 23, 2012. Cue spooky music.
Last edited:
Agreed.
That said, all the kennedy assassination/lizard people/charter expiration stuff is disinformation to tar people who have serious issues with the banking system with the conspiracy theorist brush, and it works.
It's more effective to simply let the facts speak for themselves.
Fact: the banking system was designed by a group of bankers meeting in secret.
Fact: fractional reserve banking is legislated fraud.
Fact: there is no effective oversight of the Federal Reserve.
Fact: the dollar has lost over 96% of its purchasing power since the Fed was created, destroying the savings of the frugal and passing the wealth to those who manipulate the system.
If you truly want to understand how the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, understand fiat money and fractional reserve banking. All the other excuses are just that, smoke and mirrors to distract the rubes.
A pre-1965 quarter, 90% silver, will buy two gallons of gasoline these days.
Paper promises issued by the Federal Reserve buy less and less every day.
Don, I didn't even mention the lizard people.
But, you're right. The Federal Reserve is an evil plot by a few very rich people to steal the wealth of this country and it worked like a fucking charm.
But, you're right. The Federal Reserve is an evil plot by a few very rich people to steal the wealth of this country and it worked like a fucking charm.
Carry on with this, please and thank you, but I think inflation should be set aside from the other issues, because, as I see it, inflation in some significant part is about different factions trying to increase their share, with an escalating effect.
- Joined
- May 11, 2007
- Messages
- 20,569
- Reaction score
- 4,814
- Location
- youtu.be/QRruBVFXjnY
- Website
- www.ifoundaknife.com
Folks,
per the house guidelines:
Criticizing an opinion is not the same as criticizing the individual.
If your opinion gets criticized, bring proof to support your claim, to inform others, and perhaps, enlighten them.
Just remember, we don't all have to agree here, and how boring it would be if we did.
Thanks,
-- Williebee
per the house guidelines:
Criticizing an opinion is not the same as criticizing the individual.
If your opinion gets criticized, bring proof to support your claim, to inform others, and perhaps, enlighten them.
Just remember, we don't all have to agree here, and how boring it would be if we did.
Thanks,
-- Williebee
I thought it was created when Alexander Hamilton agreed to buy off all the IOUs the new government owed to soldiers from the Revolutionary war, but the gov had to agree to equal rights for newly formed states in the parts of the U.S. that had been "granted" to them by the king of Britain?
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 3,190
- Reaction score
- 328
So... the value here is not in the denomination or when it was made but the materials from which it was made.
Silver.
And the value of silver is determined by an agreed upon amount. Society says so much silver is worth so much currency. X amount of silver will get you Y amount of stuff.
Just like soft currency. X amount of $'s will get you Y amount of stuff.
So, really, the wealth of a hard currency is just as imaginary as soft currency.
Nope, that was the First Bank of the United States. That charter expired in 1811. The Second Bank of the United States existed from 1816 to 1836. From 1837 to 1862 the states chartered the banks. FedGov got involved again in 1862 with the National Banking Act of 1863, primarily to provide loans for Lincoln to prosecute his war. That made a mess, leading to the Panic of 1907, which led to the Federal Reserve Act in 1913.
The story that the banks were free-market and destroyed the economy in the late 1800s and early 1900s, at which time the benevolent FedGov stepped in and solved all the problems, is so much poppycock. As mentioned above, the National Banking Act of 1863 was in effect for that period. As usual, FedGov offered a solution to a problem they had created in the first place, while blaming it on the "free" market.
Also, remember that cash is pretty much a security made for the purposes of carrying out valued transactions. It generally devalues because cash is made to deal with a growing population. For example, 10 000 dollars is available for a person and another person enters the population. It becomes 5 000 dollars per person. Money is created to deal with that and to wrestle towards zero inflation is a difficult task. Deflation causes market panics, a tiny bit of inflation gives the population the sense that they are growing while lots of inflation makes people uneasy.
Well, sure... if you ignore the fact that there are thousands of "soft currency" issues from around the world that are no longer worth the paper they were printed on, other than to collectors -- while "hard currency" has retained its purchasing value due to being an actual useful commodity that people buy and sell in the marketplace.
Moreover to be used as currency, a given hard object has to be removed from normal circulation. So in archaeological contexts where stone axeheads are being used as currency, you know a stone axehead being used as currency from one being used as an axe, because the one being used as currency shows no sign of use as an axe.
Even stranger, if a hard object is used as a sign of debts and payments, it tends to get less and less hard and more and more contractual, so amoung the Kwakiult the most extremely valuable coppers are the smallest with the most pieces broken off to signify debts owed to the copper-holder.
Moreover, even if all your currency is totally officially hard, nothing stops other forms of liquidity from emerging and circulating in soft forms such as documents attesting that Mr. X will pay the bearer Y of hard things when presented. The hardness of currency implies the existence of a whole battery of special exchange rates and a greater degree of centralization than softer forms of liquidity (for example trade scripts issued by trading posts).
As an employee of the FRB-NY, I would like to make it clear that I don't have the money, nor do I know where it is.
I'm all for establishing checks and balances on the feds. But what should the motive of those check and balance organizations be?
- Joined
- May 11, 2007
- Messages
- 20,569
- Reaction score
- 4,814
- Location
- youtu.be/QRruBVFXjnY
- Website
- www.ifoundaknife.com
As a non-employee of the FRB-NY, I would like to make it clear that I REALLY wish I did.
While the value of hard currency is imaginary (And there is nothing wrong with putting your faith in imaginary things), it has one big huge difference between paper money.
Hard currency cannot simply have more gold (yet).
You can't just print out more gold. (yet).
You can dilute gold and silver, but there is an outer limit to that. By keeping the pool of money smaller, its worth remains fairly constant, if imaginary.
And some people think that's something what worth having.
Now, in twenty to fifty years, we'll be able to print gold as easily as we print paper, but by then, money as we know it will be worthless anyway.
Ages ago, when I was really little, we had a local comedy sketch show called "Almost Live." One of the skits was a game show, "Who Killed JFK Today?" wherein you had to identify conspirators, and say whether or not they were involved in the assassination (and if so, why). Needless to say, bankers figured into this.
(Of course, they started out sort of normal, then went down the slope rapidly. "Lizard Men from Mercury," for instance, /were/ involved; their motive was that they didn't like his hair.
)
The value of hard currencies can fluctuate just as much as flacid currencies. To be properly turgid, a bar of gold has to be relatively rare and have some sort of fixed exchange rate with other hard things.
So for example, if you had a bar of gold in say Gambia in 1500 or Tenochitlan in say 1501, it would not be worth nearly as much (in say bananas and chocolate) as the same bar in Europe since there was a fair amount of gold in Gambia and Tenochitlan in 1500 and 1501.
So there is no necessary, rigid, exchange rate for hard bars that can override supply (eg. a new source of gold becomes available) or demand (say you want muskets and powder and shot -- in Mexico in 1520 those could be worth more than their weight in gold).
If you throw other hard objects -- such as silver or opium -- into the equation, you can see that one of the benefits of soft currencies is that the fluctuations can be more controllable.
And yet, there is an upper limit on gold's fluctuation. There's no such limit on paper money's fluctuation, which can get down right re-god-damn-diclous. See Germany, circa 1920-30s.
There's only an upper limit on a hard currency in a world economy where the chance of finding new sources is fairly stable. In particular circumstances, it can fluctuate just as much -- such as when the Aztecs sent Cortez a helmet full of gold because he said it might cure his mild case of indigestion. That's worse than taking a carload of cash to buy some noodles.
But the question comes: Which circumstance is more likely, and which should we aim for?
I mean, as far as I knew, gold has pretty much been found...right? Or is there more gold lurking around for us to dig up?
I mean, as far as I knew, gold has pretty much been found...right? Or is there more gold lurking around for us to dig up?