Your bank, My bank, what the hell, even some MODS confused

a reply to: TorinoFer

China has not yet overtaken the United States in terms of GDP or modal income. Not all Central Banks are privately owned; in fact, even the Federal Reserve Bank is not operated on a "for profit" basis, and its directors are subject to approval by Congress. If you consider an ill informed incoherent rant to be a "quality thread," I have no interest in gaining your respect. I get it though: you don't like banks. Is there a reason in particular?

a reply to: DJW001

^
^
^
Ahahaha

Your post is comedy right.

Read the OP again, bookmark it and read several times.

a reply to: TorinoFer

I agree, TorinoFer, in that a world war seems to be one of the cards in the hands of our would-be overlords. I would think they'd just as soon have the civil war thing as a world war, probably wouldn't damage the real estate quite so much. If they could contrive and control a revolution, it could possibly put their regime into even more power.

As this topic has been broached, I feel it's important to warn you all to "beware the revolution that does not bear the Constitution". Our constitutional system of government is not the problem, in my opinion. The subversion of it over the last century or so, is a big problem for all of us.

The slow steady march to totalitarianism seems to be working out well enough for them so far, perhaps they'll just let that play out. I would guess the game would be to subvert us peacefully if possible, or if not then through as long and protracted a civil war as possible, saving the hot civil war or world war as gambits to be used if it starts going badly for them. America must fall or be subverted if a global totalitarian regime is to be insituted.

On the other hand, we sure seem to have been courting war with the world since oh about September or so of 2001. That's the nature of the "US Hegemony Abroad" foreign policy that's being played out on the world stage, though. It tends to amount to us running up into everyone's front yard waving our genitalia around while the other guy's around back stealing their propane tank. It has been gratifying to me to see the American people say no to war the last few times around. There are still some people out there who get it, despite all the MSM bullpoop that keeps getting shoveled out.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: TorinoFer

China has not yet overtaken the United States in terms of GDP or modal income. Not all Central Banks are privately owned; in fact, even the Federal Reserve Bank is not operated on a "for profit" basis, and its directors are subject to approval by Congress. If you consider an ill informed incoherent rant to be a "quality thread," I have no interest in gaining your respect. I get it though: you don't like banks. Is there a reason in particular?

If I may, TorinoFer...On the contrary, sir, it is you who are ill informed. The Federal Reserve system of banks is neither federal nor a reserve. Check your history. It has never provided the stability it was purported to usher in, and has in fact done the opposite. It was passed with shady tactics under dubious conditions. It was opposed by most of the founding fathers, with the exception of Hamilton, who was a bit of an elitist. It has helped to eliminate the middle class and wealth in the hands of the people through its implementation.

Between the early national bank attempts and the founding of the Fed, the dollar was on a steady deflationary trend. Every dollar steadily and consistently increased in value during that time period when we as a nation utilised constitutional currency. The middle class grew consistently during that time period, to about eighty percent of the population by the time the Fed was founded.

The Federal Reserve did serve the purpose of providing the government with an essentially unlimited line of credit to fund government growth and expansion, so if you're into that sort of thing, then I guess the Federal Reserve might seem to be just peachy to you.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
Here in Canada our central bank is a government asset. Whatever profits come out our central bank goes into the government coffers. That is not the problem for us.

The problem for us started in the mid-late 90's when our government started borrowing not from our own central bank but commercial banks like CIBC and RBC. Instead of borrowing from our own bank at literally no cost, we pay interest to private commercial banks. Why?

That is what it takes to be allowed an economy in today's climate. If you do not pay your dues to the banks there will be little to no business development in your region or at least not at the scale that can compete with those that have the big banks in their corner.

Canada was a well-fare state in the 90's and not very long after we started paying the banks we have boomed and now becoming a global player.

This would normally be called extortion except our elected leaders signed us up for this so it is perfectly legal.

I think you did a good job of raising what I consider to be one of the few truly debatable points to a person educated on the Fed discussing the issue: the idea that the line of credit created by getting on board with the international banking cartel is necessary to wield the financial clout required of a world power.

Some would say that the trade expansions undergone by the USA during the early part of the twentieth century wouldn't have been possible without the Federal Reserve system in place, and tend to hold the Fed up as responsible for the economic growth that we experienced. I think that argument is a false bill of goods, and that the USA would have been fine without the bankers.

The bankers, however, seemed to have a different point of view. They seem to think that every nation in the world needs to be victimized by their cartel. The middle eastern nations who have endured much turmoil were not the only ones in history that were turned on when they attempted to free themselves from this cartel.

a reply to: engineercutout

What is the legal status of the Federal Reserve Bank? Where does the profit made from their loans go? What is the legal status of their governing board? Who appoints them? What happened before there was centralized banking? Would you be able to cash a check anywhere you want? I think you need to research these questions before you start attempting to correct other people with your unsupported rhetoric.

a reply to: TorinoFer

I agree with this assessment but don't mind me I M Russian therefore chronically wrong according to Yankees

a reply to: Pleasantman

Welcome back Torino.

a reply to: DJW001

Historians tend to agree with me, or at least some of them do. It's not my job to teach you history. The nefarious nature of the Fed is not some crack smoker's pipe dream, no matter how much you might wish it to be. There is a lot of historical fact that supports this point of contention, so it is not "unsupported rhetoric", as you say.

Cash a check? How about I just pay cash, or gold? It doesn't matter where the profits go, if every penny goes to the govt. it's still double usury of the people and the people's money: once in the intrinsic taxation involved in charging interest for the creation of the money, and twice for the value those dollars consistently lose due to inflation. Legal status? Far better than it ought to be for sure, in my opinion. We should've run these guys out of town the day they arrived. We should've met them at the edge of town and told them to go back to Europe!

a reply to: engineercutout

I find it very telling that you refuse to do the research necessary to answer the questions I posed. The questions are not rhetorical. Here is a clue to get you started: Scott v. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.

a reply to: DJW001

Find it telling all you like. Answering those questions for you won't change my opinion. The Federal Reserve Banking system enacted by the Federal Reserve Act is a scam perpetrated on the American people. If you want to make an argument contrary to my point of view, then do so. I'm going to continue to argue my point of view. You may continue to argue yours if you wish, I will not do it for you. I did read the link you posted. It did not alter my opinion, however.

unsupported rhetoric

To my statement on the founding fathers. This is quoted from "The Trillion Dollar Conspiracy", by Jim Marrs, first published in 2010. From page 60:

Once America's freedom was secured, Founding Fathers Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton began arguing over whether or not to adopt a central bank. Hamilton believed in a strong central government with a central bank overseen by a wealthy elite. "No society could succeed which did not unite the interest and credit of rich individuals with those of the state," Hamilton wrote. Supporters of Hamilton's elitism formed America's first political party, the Federalists. Hamilton, once described as a "tool of the international bankers," argued that "A national debt, if it is not excessive, will be to us a national blessing. It will be a powerful cement to our nation. It will also create a necessity for keeping up taxation to a degree which, without being oppressive, will be a spur to industry."
...
Jefferson believed that instituting a central bank would be unconstitutional. "I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground[enshrined in the Tenth Amendment]: That 'all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the states or to the people.' To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any defenition. The incorporation of a bank, and the powers assumed by this bill, have not, in my opinion, been delegated to the United States, by the Constitution."

To the shady tactics and dubious conditions. This is quoted from "The Trillion Dollar Conspiracy", by Jim Marrs, first published in 2010. From page 65:

But too many people saw the Aldrich Plan as a transparent attempt to create a system by the bankers and for the bankers. "The Aldrich Plan is the Wall Street plan," warned representative Charles A. Lindbergh, father of the famed aviator. When Aldrich proposed his plan as a bill, it never got out of committee.

Aldrich needed a new tactic. It came by way ot the House Banking and Currency Committee chairman, Representative Carter Glass of Virginia, who attacked the Aldrich Plan by openly stating it lacked government control and created a banking monopoly. Glass drafted an alternative, the Federal Reserve Act. Jekyll Island planners Vanderlip and Aldrich spoke out venomously against Glass's bill, even though entire sections of the bill were identical to the Aldrich Plan. By putting on a front of banker opposition, Aldrich and Vanderlip ingeniously garnered public support for the Glass bill in the major newspapers.

If it is unsupported rhetoric I am spouting on these points, then it seems that I am not the only one spouting it.

a reply to: engineercutout

So now you're saying your uniformed opinion isn't even your own? You win: Jim Marrs trumps reality every time.

a reply to: DJW001

There is Banking, and then there is evil Banking. The Fed represents evil banking. Well mannered banking is more often represented through credit unions.

originally posted by: DYepes
a reply to: DJW001

There is Banking, and then there is evil Banking. The Fed represents evil banking. Well mannered banking is more often represented through credit unions.

Okay, why is a Central Bank which is subject to government control "evil banking?" Has there never been a single case of a credit union committing fraud or making a bad investment which has cost members their savings?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: engineercutout

So now you're saying your uniformed opinion isn't even your own? You win: Jim Marrs trumps reality every time.

No, I just found the most concise source that was close at hand. There's plenty more where that came from. I don't see the need to write a research paper on it so that I can quote it to rebut your non-arguments defending the Fed. I looked back through the thread because I thought I might have missed the part where you present an actual valid defense of the fed. Don't see it in here. You've done plenty of decrying of the OP, but where's this grand slam article or thread that holds the fed up on the pedestal where you seem to think it belongs? You seem to think me uninformed, so inform me sir! Or not, as you prefer. Nothing you have presented so far has inspired in me any desire to become a Keynsian.

originally posted by: engineercutout

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: engineercutout

So now you're saying your uniformed opinion isn't even your own? You win: Jim Marrs trumps reality every time.

No, I just found the most concise source that was close at hand. There's plenty more where that came from. I don't see the need to write a research paper on it so that I can quote it to rebut your non-arguments defending the Fed. I looked back through the thread because I thought I might have missed the part where you present an actual valid defense of the fed. Don't see it in here. You've done plenty of decrying of the OP, but where's this grand slam article or thread that holds the fed up on the pedestal where you seem to think it belongs? You seem to think me uninformed, so inform me sir! Or not, as you prefer. Nothing you have presented so far has inspired in me any desire to become a Keynsian.

What makes you think I put the Fed on a pedestal? It is a human institution, and therefore flawed. It is the product of compromise, and therefore roundly hated. Tea Partiers and Free Marketeers hate it because it is an extension of the Federal Government. Socialists hate it because it is run by bankers who place the needs of the business community-- Capital-- before the needs of the individuals-- Labor. A lot of members here just hate it because it is called a "bank."

I am trying to tease out why various members have the violent opinions they do. Would I design a central bank along the lines of the United States' Fed? Absolutely not. But I have no doubt that a central bank is absolutely necessary, even for non-Keynsian purposes. If you consider the questions I have posed, you will discover the answers for yourself.

a reply to: DJW001

originally posted by: engineercutout

Between the early national bank attempts and the founding of the Fed, the dollar was on a steady deflationary trend. Every dollar steadily and consistently increased in value during that time period when we as a nation utilised constitutional currency. The middle class grew consistently during that time period, to about eighty percent of the population by the time the Fed was founded.

In support of this paragraph, I refer you to this hearing before congress.



25:30 to 27 and 32:30 to 36min would be the segments that directly support my arguments, though the entire hearing speaks directly to this topic. I do recommend it.
The eighty percent middle class statement is not made in this video, but I'm pretty sure that I've read it in other papers. Could be wrong on that one, though. The "constitutional money" years did coincide with our nation's expansion into the industrial power that we were in 1913. The steady mild deflationary trend that we enjoyed does tend to benefit the poor and middle classes the most. To people on a small fixed income, on a deflationary trend their wealth increases. Contrast that with the steady inflation of today, which hurts the lower and middle classes the most. Much of the inequality of wealth in this country can be attributed to the inflationary monetary policy that is built in to this system.
backup link

a reply to: engineercutout

Are you certain that the deflationary trend during the last two decades of the Nineteenth Century and first decade of the Twentieth was due to the absence of a Central Bank? During the period in question, the United States had recently expanded in size, making land and natural resources more abundant. Industrial production made manufactured goods less expensive, turning them from luxuries into what we now call "consumer goods." Increased efficiency in agriculture led to America becoming Europe's breadbasket, leading to a more favorable balance of trade. In short, the cost of living was falling because production costs-- including labor, due to a wave of immigration from Central and Southern Europe-- were falling as well. Supply was racing ahead of demand, and the result was deflation.

Why did inflation take off after the creation of the Fed? In one word: war. War has always forced governments to raise taxes, borrow, or both. The Revolutionary War was fought on credit, and the Civil War set off a wave of borrowing that also led to inflation. Shortly after the Fed was founded, the United States entered the First World War.

The economy cooled a little after the crash of 1929, and prices began to fall again. The deflation was so harsh that the government began a program to increase the price of farm goods by destroying crops! Yes, deflation was the first of many blows that would eventually destroy the family farm.

None of these economic factors had anything to do with central banking. The boom of the era of the "Robber Barons" was the result of capitalism unchecked by government; so was the crash of '29 and the depression that followed it. Since then, the United States has been in a constant state of war; that is why the national debt has grown out of control. First the Second World War, then the Cold War with its Koreas and Viet Nams, its ICBMs and Boomers.

The Fed is just a scapegoat. It's easier to get people riled up about bankers than it is to get them to admit to themselves that they don't need to be protected from the rest of the world.

originally posted by: DJW001

What makes you think I put the Fed on a pedestal? It is a human institution, and therefore flawed. It is the product of compromise, and therefore roundly hated. Tea Partiers and Free Marketeers hate it because it is an extension of the Federal Government. Socialists hate it because it is run by bankers who place the needs of the business community-- Capital-- before the needs of the individuals-- Labor. A lot of members here just hate it because it is called a "bank."

I am trying to tease out why various members have the violent opinions they do. Would I design a central bank along the lines of the United States' Fed? Absolutely not. But I have no doubt that a central bank is absolutely necessary, even for non-Keynsian purposes. If you consider the questions I have posed, you will discover the answers for yourself.

For my thoughts on that, as in why do I so dislike our Federal Reserve system of banking? The inflation that comes with the system hurts those with little or no safety net the most. The average man suffers under it, just because it exists. It tends to contribute to the inequality of wealth in this nation, in more ways than I can adequately express, I'm sure.

I think that no matter how pretty of a face we might want to put on it, no matter how vanilla and straightforward it might seem, this system is predatory lending at its finest. A scam that should never have been allowed. It was Amschel Mayer Rothschild who said in 1838: "I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire and I control the British money supply." This is the quote that has been paraphrased as "Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws." There's a whole study of it, the history of this banking cartel and the shenanigans they've pulled over the centuries creating a monopoly on the creation of money. I'm sure Fitts has written a paper or two on it, though I'm sure she wasn't the only one. Perhaps I'll dig one up. You see these same globalist players in the founding of the fed. This is some of the meat and potatoes of the globalist conspiracy theory, in my opinion. Nothing airy about this aspect of that theory, it has a firm basis in historical fact. So you can really lay a lot of the mechanism of the subversion of our constitutional system of government at the feet of this system. A mechanism by which we might fund our own enslavement, if you will. So disgusting.

You don't balance your books by creating a debt that can never be repaid. I think there was a good reason that the US Constitution had specific instructions as to how money is to be created. I think that we did not heed that at our peril, and are now living the consequences.

I think you'll also find that at the heart of many people's distaste for the fed is the notion that it is a mechanism for the expansion of government. We don't need this huge bureaucracy that we have in this nation, and we don't need the blank check for it that the fed has become. Taxation of income being tied to it just makes it even less likeable.

Top of my list though is that it's unconstitutional.

a reply to: DJW001

You clearly have no idea how any of this works. It is the fed that allowed the wars and the inflation.

If the US paid off all of its debt, there would be no money. In fact there would most likely be negative money.

It is a shell game. In fact we have no money. All we have is debt. FRNs are not money. Sorry. The fed has already consumed any real money inherent in the system, and there is no way to repay the debt. It is impossible. The only way to get out is to kick out the FED and start creating real constitutional money.

It will be hard with you apologists and central planners here who believe debt and govt is the answer to all.

Edit. Ever notice how every country in any axis of evil or in need of being invaded, does not have a western central bank? Coincidence? Once they accept the IMF into their hearts they are pure as the driven snow. Regardless what was the original lie, although probably true, got us to hate them.