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

originally posted by: ISawItFirst
Until we know why djw is a hardened fed defender we'll never be able to understand his point of view. He does understand ours, so it is pointless to continue.

He steps over all the facts and all the history and even the war that was fought over this.

I'm not so sure if I agree with you that D really understands our arguments. He seems fairly educated on the topic, but from a mainstream point of view. He is thoroughly "indoctrinated", you might say (don't take offense DJW001, I'm trying to make a point here). Being educated as you seem to be in the finer points of the conspirational aspect of this portion of our nations civics, you are rattling off proofs that are complex to make as basic fact. To someone so indoctrinated and not familiar with the alternative lore, it sounds like Greek or treason (as I believe it is designed to).

Some of the information available on the evils of the fed is likely intentionally wacky disinformation, designed to throw a sincere researcher off of the trail from disgust. Perhaps this is all he has ever encountered. If that is the case, well then I'm not sure I could accuse him of anything for dismissing it out of hand, except perhaps of failing to research the topic thoroughly enough. I would guess that sources that actually expose the true nature of the fed without getting too far out into the conspirational weeds, are few and far between in the wide field of information that is available on this topic.

I think that if we want to influence his opinion on this matter, we should probably get back to the basic arguments.

a reply to: DJW001

Back to basics, let's see here...You are aware that the national debt is a debt that can never be repaid, right? The national debt consists of all the money(or debt instruments) in existence, plus interest. We could recall every last dollar that is in circulation and apply it to the national debt. With no currency left to circulate, we would still owe the fed money!

a reply to: DJW001

I'm going to try to embed this video again:

25:30-27 and 32:30-36 are the parts I specifically referenced in my earlier quote, but the entire hearing is worth a look. Paraphrasing one of Mr. Lehrman's remarks, which I believe was made in the sections I've referenced here: "The only laboratory we have to observe the effects of monetary policy on society is the laboratory of history. The period of time that we were on the gold standard serves to show that under the gold standard, the effective value of the dollar remained the same during that time period." Contrast that with consistent inflation under the fed. The system under which currency retains its value is clear from this analysis.

The insolvency built in to the economy under the fed raises the question, how indeed could we ever settle this debt without defaulting? Aren't the United States and its citizenry the collateral for these loans, or more specifically the labor, capital, and natural resources that we represent? What happens when we decide, or are forced, to default? Who gets left holding the bag? What if they decide to call in their marker, or collect their property? Does that mean that we become a Chinese territory, or go to war to prevent "the big repo", or whatever you want to call it?

I don't much care for the idea of being considered property. That doesn't seem to be what this American system of constitutional government was supposed to be about when it was adopted. I don't like the idea of losing this tenuous grip that we have on some semblance of freedom and independence in this world, so I don't much care for the idea of someone taking this country away from us because some international banker types sold out our country for some really cool aircraft and lots of cheap television sets. I also don't like the idea of going to war over this idiocy. Debts either need to be paid eventually, or defaulted on, as I understand it.

I don't expect that it will actually go down this way. I'm pretty sure there's some smoke and mirrors tactic that will be brought into play at the right time, some sort of quintuple derivative swap on a piece of worthless real estate in Iowa or something, that will confound our fears and through the sorcery of international finance, somehow settle the debt. I am fairly certain, based on the fed's track record so far, that the USA will just get more swindled in the process though. It'll be like: "Okay folks, we prevented World War III but we literally own you now. This nation will now be called Rothschildia, everyone please line up for your UPC tattoo. MUHAHAHAHA!!!!", or something like that.

originally posted by: engineercutout
a reply to: DJW001

Back to basics, let's see here...You are aware that the national debt is a debt that can never be repaid, right? The national debt consists of all the money(or debt instruments) in existence, plus interest. We could recall every last dollar that is in circulation and apply it to the national debt. With no currency left to circulate, we would still owe the fed money!

Would it blow your mind if I pointed out that the national debt doesn't need to be repaid? A lot of it actually cancels itself out; people borrow from banks, banks borrow from other banks, other banks lend out of their customers' savings... all of that is the same "money" circulating in the form of "debt." I agree that governments from Washington down have been overspending in the past couple of decades, but no-one is going to foreclose on the United States. The debt is so complex, no-one even really knows who can lay claim to what.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: engineercutout
a reply to: DJW001

Back to basics, let's see here...You are aware that the national debt is a debt that can never be repaid, right? The national debt consists of all the money(or debt instruments) in existence, plus interest. We could recall every last dollar that is in circulation and apply it to the national debt. With no currency left to circulate, we would still owe the fed money!

Would it blow your mind if I pointed out that the national debt doesn't need to be repaid? A lot of it actually cancels itself out; people borrow from banks, banks borrow from other banks, other banks lend out of their customers' savings... all of that is the same "money" circulating in the form of "debt." I agree that governments from Washington down have been overspending in the past couple of decades, but no-one is going to foreclose on the United States. The debt is so complex, no-one even really knows who can lay claim to what.

Once again you are conflating personal finances and monetary policy.

The only money that exists is owned by the FED. It is not that complex.

How does the debt cancel itself out?

I agree it doesn't need to be paid. By law it does, but that law is unconstitutional. We should default. And kick them out.

Real money does not need serial numbers. That should be proof in itself that the 'money' you use is a tracked debt.

originally posted by: engineercutout

originally posted by: ISawItFirst
Until we know why djw is a hardened fed defender we'll never be able to understand his point of view. He does understand ours, so it is pointless to continue.

He steps over all the facts and all the history and even the war that was fought over this.

I'm not so sure if I agree with you that D really understands our arguments. He seems fairly educated on the topic, but from a mainstream point of view. He is thoroughly "indoctrinated", you might say (don't take offense DJW001, I'm trying to make a point here). Being educated as you seem to be in the finer points of the conspirational aspect of this portion of our nations civics, you are rattling off proofs that are complex to make as basic fact. To someone so indoctrinated and not familiar with the alternative lore, it sounds like Greek or treason (as I believe it is designed to).

Some of the information available on the evils of the fed is likely intentionally wacky disinformation, designed to throw a sincere researcher off of the trail from disgust. Perhaps this is all he has ever encountered. If that is the case, well then I'm not sure I could accuse him of anything for dismissing it out of hand, except perhaps of failing to research the topic thoroughly enough. I would guess that sources that actually expose the true nature of the fed without getting too far out into the conspirational weeds, are few and far between in the wide field of information that is available on this topic.

I think that if we want to influence his opinion on this matter, we should probably get back to the basic arguments.

Once again a well thought out and well spoken reply. I guess the difference is I don't see TJ, GW, AJ, JM as conspiratorial sources. Me and Jefferson are close, he let's me call him TJ. He said Madison and Georgie don't mind either. Jackson gets pissed, but unlike the hulk, I like him when he's angry. He crushes banks.

Is the wealth of nations a conspiratorial source now? The Federalist Papers? We don't even need to look at anything as modern as the Fed to get this.

We didn't fight a war with the bank of England so we could do the same thing here.

a reply to: ISawItFirst

Please answer my questions. I repeat: I have no clue what you mean by expressions like "real money." Here 's your chance to make a convert if you can explain yourself!

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: ISawItFirst

Please answer my questions. I repeat: I have no clue what you mean by expressions like "real money." Here 's your chance to make a convert if you can explain yourself!

I like the prospect. Your last question was whether or not something would blow my mind. The answer was no. Don't feel bad, some bullets have tried and failed.

If you could restate them succinctly, I'd happily give it a shot, and I'm sure engineering will help me be more magnanimous about it.

I started a summary, but I'll wait for the questions, and leave one or two of my own.

If we kicked out the fed, and just continued using their paper, we'd save 192 billion dollars in INTEREST this year alone. Why is this a bad thing?
Why is a country so full of riches, paying a private entity to provide a means of exchange?

(Also, the fed doesn't even pay for the cotton or the ink or the presses, we are already doing all the work. All they do is buy the bonds with imaginary credits. Then we print the credits. )

originally posted by: DJW001

Would it blow your mind if I pointed out that the national debt doesn't need to be repaid?

Not really. I know how it is supposed to work, or I guess I should say that I'm familiar with the official story of how it's supposed to work.

I agree that governments from Washington down have been overspending in the past couple of decades, but no-one is going to foreclose on the United States.

Tell that to the holders of all those T-bills, they might not agree with you.

The debt is so complex, no-one even really knows who can lay claim to what.

Well that sounds real nice "on paper", but whoever gets left holding the eighty trillion dollar bag might not view the situation with such a copasetic state of mind.

a reply to: ISawItFirst

If we kicked out the fed, and just continued using their paper, we'd save 192 billion dollars in INTEREST this year alone.

Who is paying this interest? Where does it go? What sort of paper are you talking about? What is this paper used for?

Why is this a bad thing?

That depends on who is paying the interest, where it is going, and what you mean by paper, doesn't it?

Why is a country so full of riches, paying a private entity to provide a means of exchange?

What do you mean by "country?" Are you talking about the government, the private sector or both? And what is the private entity you are talking about? The Fed? Or banks in general? Banks are not privately held, they are publicly held. You can by shares in them if you want.

(Also, the fed doesn't even pay for the cotton or the ink or the presses, we are already doing all the work. All they do is buy the bonds with imaginary credits. Then we print the credits. )

What are you talking about? The Fed has nothing to do with printing anything. You are confusing the Fed, which authorizes credit, with the Treasury, which prints paper money. The Treasury is a part of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. Are you implying that you work for the Treasury?

a reply to: DJW001
Great. I can work with these questions. Well get you straightened out DJ. I'll be back later in the day and put it down for you. If engineering is around, I trust he can see the gap between what I was trying to say and what you understood. (Probably my fault)

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: ISawItFirst

If we kicked out the fed, and just continued using their paper, we'd save 192 billion dollars in INTEREST this year alone.

Who is paying this interest? Where does it go? What sort of paper are you talking about? What is this paper used for?

Why is this a bad thing?

That depends on who is paying the interest, where it is going, and what you mean by paper, doesn't it?

Why is a country so full of riches, paying a private entity to provide a means of exchange?

What do you mean by "country?" Are you talking about the government, the private sector or both? And what is the private entity you are talking about? The Fed? Or banks in general? Banks are not privately held, they are publicly held. You can by shares in them if you want.

(Also, the fed doesn't even pay for the cotton or the ink or the presses, we are already doing all the work. All they do is buy the bonds with imaginary credits. Then we print the credits. )

What are you talking about? The Fed has nothing to do with printing anything. You are confusing the Fed, which authorizes credit, with the Treasury, which prints paper money. The Treasury is a part of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. Are you implying that you work for the Treasury?

Ok, the interest is paid to the Federal Reserve. It is paid directly from the US Budget, and is where the Federal Reserve Profits come from. When I say paper here I mean Federal Reserve Notes. In fact, a 1984 report showed that every single dollar collected in income tax went to service this debt (service on this Context means to pay the interest due)

That means not one dollar of your income tax went to a road, a school, Congress, courts, or any other service you thought you were paying for. Every single dollar in tax, was paid for the privelage of using FRNs.

So when I say we keep using their paper, I mean we keep circulating FRNS and do not honor the Tbills that produced them. It's a hypothetical, as it would probably be one of the messier ways it could go down in practice, but in theory in shows the principles rather simply.

OK, on to the next PP. Hope that helps.


When I say we are a rich country, I mean just that. This country is of, by and for the people. Or at least it used to be and was always supposed to be. The private entity is indeed the FED, who we pay for the means of exchange. FRNs.

So rather than providing a free means of exchange, as one if the primary functions of a constitutional government, which is in balance with the total of the goods services and resources in possession of the people, We have a private entity(the FED) that can inflate and deflate the money supply completely independently of the real wealth held by the people. This is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the ways they can manipulate currencies, and by extension whole governments.

Make a little more sense at least??

Ok, the last part will be easy.

I'm not confusing anything here, but perhaps I was unclear. What I mean, is as you said, the Fed doesn't print anything. They just move digits on a ledger. The Treasury issues the debt, usually called Tbills as engineering said. The fed issues the credit. Now not only does the Treasury owe interest on the money but they, (technically not them, but the bureau of engraving and printing, they do the paper) have to buy the cotton, the ink, the presses, and pay the people who work them to make the actual FRNs.

I really only added to show that what the FED provides is not exactly a value added service, if you catch my drift. It's something we already do ourselves, pay for ourselves, and we don't need their permission, or their debt.

Oh, and when I say us, we or our, I mean Americans. We do not have a caste system here, our system belongs to each and every one of us. For a hundred years, you could walk into the White house and wait by the oval office to get a word with the pres. BECAUSE it IS OUR Building. He is OUR pres. He works for us.

I believe it is high treason to disallow an American to enter any government civic building, but that's a whole other thread. Just trying to give you an idea where I stand.

a reply to: ISawItFirst

Could you provide links to the laws and charters of the various institutions so I can read where it says this? Secondary sources like Jim Marrs are full of imagination, not fact.

a reply to: DJW001

I'm a phone user. I rarely link as it is a pain in the ass. The report I mentioned in 1984 was called the grace report if I remember correctly. Should be easy to find.

The federal Reserve Act of 1913 is the law that established the 'bank'

I'd really recommend On the wealth of nations as a foundational reading.

I don't remember anyone citing marrs. All I know about him is something to do with UFOs.

This is all very documented, and the best sources are pre 1913. The Fed is the 3rd such bank in the US. True Americans like Jackson, realized this was against the values of a free country, and kicked the first two out. The crown loyalists won out in the end though, which means freedom lost.

a reply to: ISawItFirst

No it was I who quoted Marrs. I looked up something quick that I knew would be documented on our early central bank attempts, and some of Jefferson and Hamilton's back and forth, and then I ran across the original Rothschild quote in there and threw it in for good measure. I also think it's important to note that Mr. Marrs does a good job of tracing the secret influence of governments back through history in his book "Rule By Secrecy", in which the banking cartels have played a large part.

a reply to: engineercutout

So do you think we convinced him?

a reply to: ISawItFirst

Perhaps...I've argued better, I thought. I think I sort of conveyed the intrinsic value argument, but I must admit that I was disappointed in my inability to argue the topic better. I've been holding off and doing a little research so as to avoid placing my foot onto the keyboard. I'll have more to add soon.

a reply to: engineercutout

Yeah, I feel more or less the same way. Hopefully there's enough here to bring a few more into reason.

I'll assume DJ is still parsing On the Wealth of Nations. Hopefully he will let us know if we had an effect, or if he has any more questions.