Pages: 1 2

 

2009-03-25 07:21:40
Flecco
iPod is broken.
+1,048|6967|NT, like Mick Dundee

FEOS wrote:

Flecco wrote:

FEOS wrote:


That's a bit of a simplistic representation of how the Fed is actually put together and works.

You can have it work with either wholly-govt owned or a mixture of private/govt ownership. Right now, the Fed's structure gives the private banks a say, but the govt has the majority vote on the Board.
Yep, and they charge the govt. interest.
And the govt charges them interest. And they charge each other interest.
Never heard that one before. Then again I find US politics and policy on the Federal level to be a pretty murky pond.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
2009-03-25 08:45:11
SonderKommando
Eat, Lift, Grow, Repeat....
+564|6962|The darkside of Denver

FEOS wrote:

Flecco wrote:

FEOS wrote:


So you don't have a problem with the Fed then?
Fed is partially owned by private interests.
That's a bit of a simplistic representation of how the Fed is actually put together and works.

You can have it work with either wholly-govt owned or a mixture of private/govt ownership. Right now, the Fed's structure gives the private banks a say, but the govt has the majority vote on the Board.
Maybe you should listen to Mr. Greenspan again.. The fed is wholly owned by private interest. It is on no way a government body. Although, it likes to masquerade as one. There are no government officials on the fed board of governors and the fed has NEVER been audited by congress or any other legislative, judicial, or executive body of government.
2009-03-25 21:35:45
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6713|'Murka

SonderKommando wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Flecco wrote:


Fed is partially owned by private interests.
That's a bit of a simplistic representation of how the Fed is actually put together and works.

You can have it work with either wholly-govt owned or a mixture of private/govt ownership. Right now, the Fed's structure gives the private banks a say, but the govt has the majority vote on the Board.
Maybe you should listen to Mr. Greenspan again.. The fed is wholly owned by private interest. It is on no way a government body. Although, it likes to masquerade as one. There are no government officials on the fed board of governors and the fed has NEVER been audited by congress or any other legislative, judicial, or executive body of government.
Maybe you should read a little about the Fed. It is NOT wholly owned by private interest. It is in many ways a government body, as the majority of the voting members (7 of 12) are appointed by the Executive and approved by the Senate.

When you get something as basic as that wrong, the rest of your opinion tends to fall flat regardless.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-03-25 21:42:08
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6831|Global Command

FEOS wrote:

SonderKommando wrote:

FEOS wrote:


That's a bit of a simplistic representation of how the Fed is actually put together and works.

You can have it work with either wholly-govt owned or a mixture of private/govt ownership. Right now, the Fed's structure gives the private banks a say, but the govt has the majority vote on the Board.
Maybe you should listen to Mr. Greenspan again.. The fed is wholly owned by private interest. It is on no way a government body. Although, it likes to masquerade as one. There are no government officials on the fed board of governors and the fed has NEVER been audited by congress or any other legislative, judicial, or executive body of government.
Maybe you should read a little about the Fed. It is NOT wholly owned by private interest. It is in many ways a government body, as the majority of the voting members (7 of 12) are appointed by the Executive and approved by the Senate.

When you get something as basic as that wrong, the rest of your opinion tends to fall flat regardless.
Who then give contributions to the politicians that in turn funnel trillions into the hands of these bankers in interest payments and bailouts.
2009-03-26 15:45:47
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6707|North Carolina
There are 2 things the Founding Fathers shoud've included in the Constitution.

The first is often talked about but isn't actually in the Constitution itself....  the Separation of Church and State.  While we have a secular government, connecting it with religion would technically not violate the Constitution, but thankfully, we essentially assume that the Separation of Church and State is consistent with the spirit of the document.

The other principle that would've been helpful is the Separation of Private Industry and the Government.  The Fed Reserve seems to be a perfect example of why things like big banks should not be given governmental powers.
2009-03-26 15:47:57
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6707|North Carolina

FEOS wrote:

SonderKommando wrote:

FEOS wrote:


That's a bit of a simplistic representation of how the Fed is actually put together and works.

You can have it work with either wholly-govt owned or a mixture of private/govt ownership. Right now, the Fed's structure gives the private banks a say, but the govt has the majority vote on the Board.
Maybe you should listen to Mr. Greenspan again.. The fed is wholly owned by private interest. It is on no way a government body. Although, it likes to masquerade as one. There are no government officials on the fed board of governors and the fed has NEVER been audited by congress or any other legislative, judicial, or executive body of government.
Maybe you should read a little about the Fed. It is NOT wholly owned by private interest. It is in many ways a government body, as the majority of the voting members (7 of 12) are appointed by the Executive and approved by the Senate.

When you get something as basic as that wrong, the rest of your opinion tends to fall flat regardless.
As ATG suggested, the flaw in the Fed is that lobbyism has corrupted our overall government to the point that maintaining a quasi-governmental body heavily tied to big banks is not a wise idea.

I used to think that the military industrial complex ran the government, but now, I can see that banks are the ones with the most power.
2009-03-26 16:04:54
Flecco
iPod is broken.
+1,048|6967|NT, like Mick Dundee

Turquoise wrote:

I used to think that the military industrial complex ran the government, but now, I can see that banks are the ones with the most power.
Turq, it probably depends on who is in power and who backed them to get there.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
2009-03-26 16:19:15
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6707|North Carolina

Flecco wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I used to think that the military industrial complex ran the government, but now, I can see that banks are the ones with the most power.
Turq, it probably depends on who is in power and who backed them to get there.
To a degree, yes, but I'm referring to longstanding power.  Certain interest groups maintain power over multiple administrations.  Banking would seem to have the most power of those groups.
2009-03-26 17:25:07
Marinejuana
local
+415|6887|Seattle
This is a pretty simple issue. Nearly all of Europe's colonies (that had been militarily conquered) were "freed" under the condition that they would have a central bank that participates in the global central banking system, today administrated by the WB, IMF, and BIS. This means that all but about 20-30 nations in the world (coincidentally the same ones we claim "harbor terrorists") agreed to allow the central banking system to own everything they have or are going to produce via ownership of the currency that would facilitate all monetary trade. Because all the money in the world originally belongs to banks that produce nothing other than the money itself, we have a de facto world oligarchy.

People are not smart enough to recognize a governing body when it doesn't wave a flag, have an anthem and call itself your government. The people called your leaders today are only scapegoats. Buffers between the people with legitimate power and the people that would hold them accountable for their decisions.

As long as people are required by law to accept worthless paper or bank credit in exchange for all debts public and private, the banking institutions and their trusts, can, and have, bought up most of the world's industry and resources under the guise of capitalism where all capital is actually monopolized before it even exists as anything tangible. Direct monopolies over individual industries are almost irrelevant when the currency, itself, is monopolized. Why doesn't inflation devalue this system of control? Because they don't just control the right to print a given currency, their currencies come and go globally. Once they have bought enough with their currency to debase it, they have the right to create the next currency that you are legally required to accept. The result is the constant flow of worthless paper of various colors to the working man, and the constant flow of real assets to the bankers and anybody they decide to credit, such as our government, massive non-profits, and corporations.

The central banking system is easily the greatest crime against humanity to date. Without this system of infinite buying power, such tragedies as the world wars, the holocausts, and the communist purges, could never have been possible on the scale that they were. To demand that a person trade their goods for your "credit" is stealing in the simplest sense. As long as we never hear about this from a "reputable source" (AKA super-rich network, publisher, or university) most of us will probably never believe it.

And here's what happens if you decide to try it for yourself...
http://www.geekologie.com/2008/11/good_ … rawing.php

Last edited by Marinejuana (2009-03-26 17:30:51)

2009-03-26 19:11:03
Flecco
iPod is broken.
+1,048|6967|NT, like Mick Dundee

Turquoise wrote:

Flecco wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I used to think that the military industrial complex ran the government, but now, I can see that banks are the ones with the most power.
Turq, it probably depends on who is in power and who backed them to get there.
To a degree, yes, but I'm referring to longstanding power.  Certain interest groups maintain power over multiple administrations.  Banking would seem to have the most power of those groups.
Chances are the bankers own the military industrial complex tbh.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
2009-03-26 19:26:06
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6713|'Murka

Marinejuana wrote:

Nearly all of Europe's colonies (that had been militarily conquered) were "freed" under the condition that they would have a central bank that participates in the global central banking system, today administrated by the WB, IMF, and BIS.
Interesting theory. Do you have any sources to back up the claim?

Not saying I disbelieve it. Just interested if there is information out there from some place other than tinfoil-hat conspiracy sites that would back that up. One would think it would be historical record or something.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-03-26 19:31:49
Mitch
16 more years
+877|6828|South Florida
Every single thing the federal government does is just wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. It's not that they have bad advisers... no, its worse than that. They do not want whats right for the country, they want to engineer a collapse so they can start a world currency which will require world laws, a world bank, and once they do that.... we're fucked.
15 more years! 15 more years!
2009-03-26 19:41:58
Flecco
iPod is broken.
+1,048|6967|NT, like Mick Dundee

Mitch wrote:

Every single thing the federal government does is just wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. It's not that they have bad advisers... no, its worse than that. They do not want whats right for the country, they want to engineer a collapse so they can start a world currency which will require world laws, a world bank, and once they do that.... we're fucked.
Just curious but what's the difference to us?

Shit FEOS might be out of a job if there's no more wars to fight but he'd easily find employment in the private sector. What is the difference to YOU Mitch.

What will change in YOUR life if their is an NWO. What do you think they will do to you?
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
2009-03-26 20:10:06
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6707|North Carolina

Flecco wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flecco wrote:


Turq, it probably depends on who is in power and who backed them to get there.
To a degree, yes, but I'm referring to longstanding power.  Certain interest groups maintain power over multiple administrations.  Banking would seem to have the most power of those groups.
Chances are the bankers own the military industrial complex tbh.
I would agree.  If you run the financial system, you can pretty much own anything.
2009-03-27 09:19:57
Mitch
16 more years
+877|6828|South Florida

Flecco wrote:

Mitch wrote:

Every single thing the federal government does is just wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. It's not that they have bad advisers... no, its worse than that. They do not want whats right for the country, they want to engineer a collapse so they can start a world currency which will require world laws, a world bank, and once they do that.... we're fucked.
Just curious but what's the difference to us?

Shit FEOS might be out of a job if there's no more wars to fight but he'd easily find employment in the private sector. What is the difference to YOU Mitch.

What will change in YOUR life if their is an NWO. What do you think they will do to you?
1. Well ive always been fond of starting a business, selling to people, and if it was up to Obama the government would control every aspect of your business. ("salary caps", etc)

2. If i do make it rich from my business, i don't need the fucking feds reaching into my bank account and withdrawing accordingly. (Anyone who makes over 250k has to give up money for the poor)

Im a very generous person, i take friends out to eat, i buy friends stuff randomly, and i love it. Being rich would only increase this, its just natural to me. However, i DO NOT need the government TELLING me to give up my money, just because i make more of it than someone else.

I earned the money, i deserve every penny of it, and if someone else is jealous, than they can work there asses off to build a business of their own.

3. It goes against what America was based on, and i respect our forefathers too much to let that happen
15 more years! 15 more years!
2009-03-27 14:18:07
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|6297|Truthistan

topal63 wrote:

g.) Bring the Fed under the arm of the US Treasury Dept. and make it a true Central Bank of America. It can no longer buy bonds issued by congress. It no longer loans money to the private banks. It loans money directly to it's citizens.
This looks like a federal bank. If the govt made a federal bank then it would in fact be abolishing the federal reserve because the federal reserve is really just a union of private banks and those member banks are chartered or granted the power by congress to create the money supply.

What really gives me a distaste for the Fed is the fact that the creation of the money supply requires the govt to give the fed bonds and the govt has to pay interest on those bonds. Why is tax payer money being taken to create the money supply, and who exactly is getting that tax money?

And here is some Fed math for you?

If the fed wants $1 trillion more in the money supply then the govt issues $1 trillion in bonds and promises to pay  for example $1 in interest. So the debt on the money supply is $1 trillion plus $1. With me so far? Soooooo....... How can you pay back $1 trillion plus $1 when the physical money supply is only $1 trillion? You can not physically pay back that $1, its impossible.
That's the scam. In order to pay that debt back, the govt has borrow more money from the fed to finance the interest portion of the debt that created the money supply. This creates more debt, which requires more printed money, more bonds = more interest = more debt etc etc etc. The fed fiat money builds in an inflationary effect and over time the money becomes less valuable. It becomes a hidden tax that inhibits the creation of wealth from one generation to the next so that only the super ultra wealthy can immunize themselves from the effects of the market. Right now the baby boomer saving that would have been passed on to their children are being eroded and that ensures a new generation of hungry workers for the salt mines.

But we will have the last laugh because as the money becomes less valuable and inflationary pressure keep building, the inflationary pressuret will eventually become exponetial until the entire monetary system becomes unstable and it collapses. IMO Right now the Fed and the US monetary system is on the verge of collapse. At that point we will dump the Fed, I only wish we could do it before the collapse in order to save lives.
2009-03-27 14:26:42
Flecco
iPod is broken.
+1,048|6967|NT, like Mick Dundee

Mitch wrote:

1. Well ive always been fond of starting a business, selling to people, and if it was up to Obama the government would control every aspect of your business. ("salary caps", etc)

2. If i do make it rich from my business, i don't need the fucking feds reaching into my bank account and withdrawing accordingly. (Anyone who makes over 250k has to give up money for the poor)

Im a very generous person, i take friends out to eat, i buy friends stuff randomly, and i love it. Being rich would only increase this, its just natural to me. However, i DO NOT need the government TELLING me to give up my money, just because i make more of it than someone else.

I earned the money, i deserve every penny of it, and if someone else is jealous, than they can work there asses off to build a business of their own.

3. It goes against what America was based on, and i respect our forefathers too much to let that happen
Fair enough.

The 'salary caps' are for companies who have received bailouts though. Besides Mitch once you float the company the government will be on your side, shit the bigger a corporation gets the easier it is for them in the USA, or so it seems.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
2009-04-01 10:22:51
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|6297|Truthistan

topal63 wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

topal63 wrote:

g.) Bring the Fed under the arm of the US Treasury Dept. and make it a true Central Bank of America. It can no longer buy bonds issued by congress. It no longer loans money to the private banks. It loans money directly to it's citizens.
This looks like a federal bank. If the govt made a federal bank then it would in fact be abolishing the federal reserve because the federal reserve is really just a union of private banks and those member banks are chartered or granted the power by congress to create the money supply.

What really gives me a distaste for the Fed is the fact that the creation of the money supply requires the govt to give the fed bonds and the govt has to pay interest on those bonds. Why is tax payer money being taken to create the money supply, and who exactly is getting that tax money?

And here is some Fed math for you?

If the fed wants $1 trillion more in the money supply then the govt issues $1 trillion in bonds and promises to pay  for example $1 in interest. So the debt on the money supply is $1 trillion plus $1. With me so far? Soooooo....... How can you pay back $1 trillion plus $1 when the physical money supply is only $1 trillion? You can not physically pay back that $1, its impossible.
That's the scam. In order to pay that debt back, the govt has borrow more money from the fed to finance the interest portion of the debt that created the money supply. This creates more debt, which requires more printed money, more bonds = more interest = more debt etc etc etc. The fed fiat money builds in an inflationary effect and over time the money becomes less valuable. It becomes a hidden tax that inhibits the creation of wealth from one generation to the next so that only the super ultra wealthy can immunize themselves from the effects of the market. Right now the baby boomer saving that would have been passed on to their children are being eroded and that ensures a new generation of hungry workers for the salt mines.

But we will have the last laugh because as the money becomes less valuable and inflationary pressure keep building, the inflationary pressuret will eventually become exponetial until the entire monetary system becomes unstable and it collapses. IMO Right now the Fed and the US monetary system is on the verge of collapse. At that point we will dump the Fed, I only wish we could do it before the collapse in order to save lives.
You can't just abolish it out-right (the Federal Reserve Act, it would take time). We need to phase out private-sector banking, not the Central Bank, that is the beginning of the money supply and would then assume full responsibility for the money supply. Its' money supply and debts (the private sector) needs to be nationalized. Also, inflation is not really a hidden-tax. And, the interest is an out-right un-hidden waste (it is obvious it is held privately). In an economy  which one does not participate in--only has savings; no income; yes it is a hidden-tax of devaluation, whereby that missing-value is being redistributed into the newly created money. But, for those earning income if the standard of income is rising the point is moot. And not being able to expand the money supply can lead to stagnation, recession or depression in the economy. And it certainly has even with the money supply expanding; as that bulk has stagnated (concentrated) into a non-productive private financial sector.

Also, expansion of the money supply is not a scam. It is not the interest that doesn't exist at the time an instrument of debt is created that is the problem. It is the fact that the debt is not held by the government on behalf of the people. That debt is privately owned (almost all of it): so our income taxes must be wasted to pay the private holders of this debt. So, in actuality it never gets paid off--it just accumulates and so does the waste (of interest payments) associated with said debt. If the Federal Reserve makes any money on debt held, by law, they are obligated to return that as income to the government. That is a mere tiny fraction of the interest earned on debt.

If the money supply was federalized; excepting venture capitalists that risk their own actual real money; the problem of interest would not exist. There would no longer be a national debt (owned by the private sector) there would a national debt loaned to the public. As part of its' policies, after private banking is phased out, the new reformed Central Bank could easily destroy money (interest income payments coming in) as it sees fit to control the money supply, in fact it would be an obvious economy control mechanism.

n.) A true Central Bank would have flexibility as owners of debt. Say you were in trouble on a 30 year mortgage; and it seems somehow that a large number of Americans could fall into this category. Instead of stressing the economy and risking recession, the Central Bank extends the loan by one or two years. Extending it by one or two years is the equivalent of making half-payments for two or four years. In a crisis this would make far better sense--then actively foreclosing and destroying the debt (destroying debt effectively destroys money out of the economy).

o.) It is cheaper to buy a private Bank than it is to bail it out. The assets (debts) then become the responsibility of the government. At this time the toxic-asset problem is non-existent. They can do a number of things accounting wise, rule wise, internal policy wise, etc; that can alleviate the problems of defaulting or near defaulting debt. Auction, re-negotiate terms (see n. above as example), lower the interest rate extremely, jump start the economy by re-negotiating interest rates with customers in good-standing (free up money for spending), etc.
The main point is the the govt is paying 1 or 2% to create the money supply. Banks are paying 1 or 2% for the money they borrow. Now that money goes to private hands through the issuing of bonds. That money can never be repaid so the tax payer is paying a perpetual fee for the creatin of the money supply which is something that is just printed up.

The Fed has to go, the interest paid to create the money supply should be taken in just like a tax and used for govt purposes. Why should we be paying tax on that interest when that interest should be coming to us. its like a double book entry where the asset is logged as a liability so a change in getting the money to come to us would be a double benefit.

When I asked the question who is getting the interest on these bonds, I know its private interests, but what I want to know it specifics, who owns what and how much. That would shed some light on the global power politics.
2009-04-01 22:15:51
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|6297|Truthistan

topal63 wrote:

Interest payments to the government would/could replace taxes; probably in their entirety.
^^^^ Agreed.

I would like to know who is holding the treasury bonds given by the treasury to the Fed to create the money supply. I'm curious to know who is dealing with the Fed and how much they are paying the Fed to buy those bonds. Seems to me that those bonds pay interest in perpetuity.

The way I look at it, the Fed is supposed to turn profits back to the treasury, but very little comes back (I can't find the figures right now)

But if the Fed is selling the treasury bonds it receives when the Fed creates the money supply, then presumable they are getting face value on the bonds. But if they are getting face value on the bonds then the Feds profit should be coming back the treasury so the money in and the money out should be a wash.  it would work like this, the govt wants $1 trillion in cash put into the economy, the fed has $1 trillion printed up and they pay 4 cents for every bill printed (printing cost), the treasury prints up $1 trillion in bonds where it promies to pay from example, 1% interest. The Fed gives the cash to the govt and the takes those bonds and sells them. But if they sell them at face value, the the fed should get $1 trillion minus some discount back. The fed then has approximately 1 trillion minus the printing costs = profit. The profit is to be remitted back to the treasury, so the whole thing is pretty close to a wash. Right?

I must be missing something here or the Fed is selling the bonds it receives for a value that far below the face value and the profit is being recognized by the bond holder giving that entity buying the bonds a huge automatic profit... but that can't be right. Can it?
2009-04-01 22:28:43
Deadmonkiefart
Floccinaucinihilipilificator
+177|7008

Flecco wrote:

Didn't Andrew Jackson get rid of the old central banking system? I thought he was widely regarded as a terrible President...
My favorite quote from a prez, "The bank is trying to destroy me, but I will kill it first!" -Andrew Jackson.
2009-04-02 03:10:02
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6713|'Murka

Flecco wrote:

Mitch wrote:

1. Well ive always been fond of starting a business, selling to people, and if it was up to Obama the government would control every aspect of your business. ("salary caps", etc)

2. If i do make it rich from my business, i don't need the fucking feds reaching into my bank account and withdrawing accordingly. (Anyone who makes over 250k has to give up money for the poor)

Im a very generous person, i take friends out to eat, i buy friends stuff randomly, and i love it. Being rich would only increase this, its just natural to me. However, i DO NOT need the government TELLING me to give up my money, just because i make more of it than someone else.

I earned the money, i deserve every penny of it, and if someone else is jealous, than they can work there asses off to build a business of their own.

3. It goes against what America was based on, and i respect our forefathers too much to let that happen
Fair enough.

The 'salary caps' are for companies who have received bailouts though. Besides Mitch once you float the company the government will be on your side, shit the bigger a corporation gets the easier it is for them in the USA, or so it seems.
Heard on the news again yesterday that Barney Franks is working on the legislation to allow the govt to cap executive pay for companies that are not receiving bailout money.

How ya like them apples?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard