The U.S. Congress Trades as Ron Paul!

I appreciate badmedia's and other's evidence indicating that this is likely all no more than a standard accounting of the banal structure of modern business enterprise. Indeed, it does seem perfectly plausible, and logical.

However, as I see it, nothing has been ruled-out. As I've observed in the past, many things that appear to be one thing, are that thing, but they are also something else, and that something else is the primary reason for the former's existence.

There may yet be some valuable knowledge to be uncovered by pursuing some of the questions raised within this thread.


-----badmedia---- Excellent story/lesson in your sig, btw.

Cheers to all

reply to post by badmedia


Badmedia,

I am certainly no banking guru, but I do feel the need to respond to your post.

“Hi, but you are forgetting that the loans themselves become an assets which can be lended against. That is where/how you get into increases beyond 100%.”

I’m not really sure what you are attempting to say here and I don’t believe the idea that loans and the collateral behind them, whether real estate, FF&E or security pledges, etc. contradicts the point of my prior email. Do you believe a bank should consider both deposits and loans as liabilities? A banks assets (loans and shareholder equity/capital) and liabilities (deposits and other liabilities) a supposed to balance out in a very similar fashion to most businesses.

“Which is why all those "toxic assets" killed the banks. They say "Asset A" is worth $100, so they lend against that asset as if it's value is $100, and then it turns out Asset A is only worth $10, and suddenly they are unable to meet their requirements.”

What you are describing is a situation that does not validate your opinion on how fractional reserve banking works, but it does give a snapshot of what has possibly transpired with some banks regarding some of their assets after the real estate crash. Certainly you understand that this scenario is very similar to what happened to homeowners that thought their homes would never be worth less than they paid for them?

“So when that happened, suddenly the banks went bankrupt and didn't have enough money to cover their debts. The banks that were bailed out were given enough money to cover that difference, while the banks that were not bailed out when bankrupt because they were unable to meet their requirements once the "toxic assets" true value was determined.”

Again, I don’t believe this statement supports your view of how fractional reserve banking works. Notwithstanding my belief, I generally agree with the balance of your statement

“So does the bank literally take the $1000 and turn it into $9000 off the bat? No, not exactly. But that is effectively what they are doing, and the effects of that process are exactly as I described, as well as teh fact that the interest money itself is never created and thus it is impossible to get out of debt.”

I don’t quite follow you here. But let’s look at what a borrower/real estate investor does: If I buy a piece of income producing real estate and I borrow money from the bank to do so; I would typically expect that real estate to have a capitalization rate at some spread beyond my cost of funds that I was expected to pay the bank. Consequently, am I not making interest on money that is not actually mine? It was actually borrowed or created out of this air as well, was it not?

“If the banks had done as you say and if that were true, they wouldn't have all went bankrupt or needed to be bailed out. They would have been solvent and within the required reserves.”

This is not a very convincing statement to me. Home prices had not fallen nationally YOY since WWII and given this fact it is not necessarily outrageous for a person to have believed this trend would continue. The real reasons for the crash were greed, poor oversight and belated action by those that could have prevented this from happening. Keep in mind that I am not saying that some very high up players didn’t foment this situation and even desire for this to happen. I think the whole crash could have been prevented and certain people were likely happy that it did. When you create massive derivative markets, credit default swaps and the like it is really just done to find another way to make the system more complex and milk money out of the same damn dollar/security or whatever as many times as possible to bolster things like trading fees and transaction fees and realistically they provide enormous profits to those that create them at enormous risk to the general public.

“It is economic slavery. If you want to get into the actual laws and specific process of it all then we can. I don't find many people that are actually up for such, and so I usually stick with the general explanation so that people can at least see what it does”

I agree that most of us are economic slaves and the current system shows great favor to the Bankers and the Barristers. The world could be a much better place and many of the same aristocratic families that have had such significant influence upon global decision making (policy and laws), have done a very crappy job of being competent, trustworthy or moral.

Friend, I do want you to know that I am on your side in this fight for real change in society. I also hope people realize that aliens (if they exist), are going to do what they are going to do and the path to spiritual awakening and/or religious truth is not a short one. The issues that we can all actually impact almost immediately are the rampant corruptions in banking, business, government and the law. At a minimum, those privy to way the system functions should gain as much knowledge in these areas as their current disposition allows and pass this information on to as many people as they can (caveat; don’t push it on people and do your very best to make sure the information you give is factual).

Regards.


P.S. Here is a link to the bank search page on the FDIC’s website. You can pull up financial statements on your least favorite banks.

Link: www2.fdic.gov...

reply to post by badmedia

I may be late to this party, but...
GIVE IT A BREAK ALREADY!!
What are you looking for? An apology for some wrong against Ron Paul?
I happen to think Ron Paul is a true Patriot. But, when I see someone spend SO MUCH EFFORT defending some perceived knock on his credibility, I have to wonder why?
All of your posts could have been wrapped up in ONE criticism, and then you could have left the thread or contributed something.
If there was ever a reason to doubt that Ron Paul is legitimate, YOU are the best reason, for ME, to question my own beliefs about Ron Paul. Congratulations.
I am legitimate, and I know of no one that would post extensively at my defense, as you have done.

against the OP?

for Ron Paul?

Sorry, Ron Paul does not need such a fanatical defense.
If he does, I don't need Ron Paul.

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by badmedia

 

I may be late to this party, but...
GIVE IT A BREAK ALREADY!!
What are you looking for? An apology for some wrong against Ron Paul?

Umm, most of the time I'm responding to people like you who tell me to overlook the Ron Paul thing, and then just reinstate the reason why I won't just overlook it and why I don't think it should be overlooked.

I happen to think Ron Paul is a true Patriot. But, when I see someone spend SO MUCH EFFORT defending some perceived knock on his credibility, I have to wonder why?

Go ahead and wonder why, I don't care.

All of your posts could have been wrapped up in ONE criticism, and then you could have left the thread or contributed something.

I respond to people who have responded to me. Also, I have contributed plenty to the thread and was one of the few people who even did any research into the topic rather than making blind accusations.

If there was ever a reason to doubt that Ron Paul is legitimate, YOU are the best reason, for ME, to question my own beliefs about Ron Paul. Congratulations.
I am legitimate, and I know of no one that would post extensively at my defense, as you have done.

against the OP?

for Ron Paul?

Sorry, Ron Paul does not need such a fanatical defense.
If he does, I don't need Ron Paul.

Then you sir are an idiot. If what someone else says and does is even factors remotely into your decision about someone else, then you who really gives a crap what you think? If you are so ignorant as to even think that such is a valid way to make decisions, then it's not like you can be counted on to make the correct choice anyway.

And if your paranoid brain works as such, then how do you know I'm not just someone against Ron Paul doing this to make you not like him? See how stupid is to even base such a decision on things?

Of course, I for some reason doubt you are that dumb, and I certainly hope not. So I think this is probably nothing more than a lame attempt to try and get me to follow your will/wishes.

OMG, Badmedia,

Read the second line of my post.

You know, your Avatar is really cool. That is something, I supoose.

Originally posted by InterestingRide
reply to post by badmedia

 

Badmedia,

I am certainly no banking guru, but I do feel the need to respond to your post.

I enjoy the discussion and if you can show me an error in what I say I will be most thankful for it.

I’m not really sure what you are attempting to say here and I don’t believe the idea that loans and the collateral behind them, whether real estate, FF&E or security pledges, etc. contradicts the point of my prior email. Do you believe a bank should consider both deposits and loans as liabilities? A banks assets (loans and shareholder equity/capital) and liabilities (deposits and other liabilities) a supposed to balance out in a very similar fashion to most businesses.

If the banks books operated in the same manner as a business, then that is what you would call "Full reserve banking". But in fractional reserve banking, the banks are only required to keep/have a fraction of "money" they have loaned out. And when they balance their books, it is based on the fractional % rather than the full 100% as in full reserve banking.

Do I think those things should be allowed such as allowing the loan/collateral to be an asset which can be lent against? Absolutely not.

What you are describing is a situation that does not validate your opinion on how fractional reserve banking works, but it does give a snapshot of what has possibly transpired with some banks regarding some of their assets after the real estate crash. Certainly you understand that this scenario is very similar to what happened to homeowners that thought their homes would never be worth less than they paid for them?

This I will address below with your claim that home prices have not dropped(reason for that).

Again, I don’t believe this statement supports your view of how fractional reserve banking works. Notwithstanding my belief, I generally agree with the balance of your statement

It's not that it explains how fractional banking works, I'm saying that it is only possible to happen in a fractional banking system.

I don’t quite follow you here. But let’s look at what a borrower/real estate investor does: If I buy a piece of income producing real estate and I borrow money from the bank to do so; I would typically expect that real estate to have a capitalization rate at some spread beyond my cost of funds that I was expected to pay the bank. Consequently, am I not making interest on money that is not actually mine? It was actually borrowed or created out of this air as well, was it not?

The point about the interest money is that it is never created. The $100 that is loaned to you is created, but the $5 in interest is not created. That means in order for you to pay the $105 back, you must take $5 from someone else. But guess what? By system design someone is going to fail/go bankrupt.

More money is owed back to the banks than what actually exists. So, sure in your "profitable" business you are able to pay back the $105. So lets say that 2 people had loans of $100. $200 is created, but $210 is due back to the bank. If you pay back your $105, then it by default means the other person can only pay back $95.

So yes, you could with a profitable business pay back your part. But it comes at the expense of putting everyone else in debt/slavery. Is that acceptable to you? It's not to me. I am personally debt free and refuse to accept credit. I do without if that is what it means.

What it does is create a system of where there is never enough money.

The interest is actually the main point/kicker of the entire system. I mean money is obviously convenient and has it's purposes. But we need an honest monetary system(more at the bottom).

This is not a very convincing statement to me. Home prices had not fallen nationally YOY since WWII and given this fact it is not necessarily outrageous for a person to have believed this trend would continue. The real reasons for the crash were greed, poor oversight and belated action by those that could have prevented this from happening. Keep in mind that I am not saying that some very high up players didn’t foment this situation and even desire for this to happen. I think the whole crash could have been prevented and certain people were likely happy that it did. When you create massive derivative markets, credit default swaps and the like it is really just done to find another way to make the system more complex and milk money out of the same damn dollar/security or whatever as many times as possible to bolster things like trading fees and transaction fees and realistically they provide enormous profits to those that create them at enormous risk to the general public.

Prices don't fall because of inflation. The nature of inflation is to rise the prices. So while you may think "OMG, that guy in 1920 made only a nickel and hour", what the person could buy with that nickel was alot more than what you could buy today with it.

This is your purchasing power.

If there is $100 in existance, and 10 apples, supply and demand says the price of the apple is $10. If you have $200 is existence and still 10 apples, then the price of the apples is now $20.

So of course adding money to the market isn't going to make the price of your house fall, in fact it will make it rise.

It is people on fixed income(poor) who this hurts the most. Imagine you had a budget of $1000 to spend a month on what you need. As more money is created and added to the system, then the price of goods go up. So where before you were buying milk at $3 a gallon, you now have to pay $5 a gallon. Well their income doesn't rise, and so they are only made more poor. The money they had no longer buys what it did before. Thus, even though the get the same amount of money, they have actually been made poorer.

And so the poor get poorer, and the rich get richer. Because Mr CEO and big time corporation is the one who is getting the newly created money in that big loan. But now you know where the value of that newly created money comes from, and at what expense.

So, it's the difference of Purchasing Power vs Prices.

I agree that most of us are economic slaves and the current system shows great favor to the Bankers and the Barristers. The world could be a much better place and many of the same aristocratic families that have had such significant influence upon global decision making (policy and laws), have done a very crappy job of being competent, trustworthy or moral.

Friend, I do want you to know that I am on your side in this fight for real change in society. I also hope people realize that aliens (if they exist), are going to do what they are going to do and the path to spiritual awakening and/or religious truth is not a short one. The issues that we can all actually impact almost immediately are the rampant corruptions in banking, business, government and the law. At a minimum, those privy to way the system functions should gain as much knowledge in these areas as their current disposition allows and pass this information on to as many people as they can (caveat; don’t push it on people and do your very best to make sure the information you give is factual).

Speaking of religion, this method of economic slavery is so old and tired, it's even mentioned in the bible and was a very major issue for Jesus.

Outside that, I won't speak to much on religion since if you think I'm persistent in politics, you ain't seen nothing.

But I will say this - the key to finding the truth is to always go in the way of understanding, and to let idols/symbolisms go.

This specific issue of banking and economics is the root cause of all the rest. All the rest of it is just treating the symptoms. Healthcare, Welfare, Bailouts. Even the cuthroat world of business. Because again, it is setup that way from the start, the only way to pay your "piece of the pie" is to take into anothers piece. All profit is made at the expense and failure of someone else, who's effect is only marginalized through the constant creation of more money. And it doesn't have to be that way.

I feel I should give a general history of money in the US and the reasons/way things progressed into the way they are.

Originally posted by Stewie
OMG, Badmedia,

Read the second line of my post.

You know, your Avatar is really cool. That is something, I supoose.

Can one not say that maybe you should equally let go and realize that I'm not going to let it go? That the main reasons it's brought up is not because I am directly bringing it up, but because I am responding to people who think I should let it go?

It's a matter of principle to me. If you want to move it beyond that, then just stop telling me it doesn't matter, and stop telling me to let it go. It does matter, and it shouldn't be acceptable to anyone. If a little intellectual honesty is such a travesty with minor things, whats to be expected on the larger scale?

It matters to me. I care. It may not be popular to care, it may not be liked very much in today's society. But I care. Beyond all else, these little trivial things to you are most important to me. To me, it's the foundation of all that follows. What I don't care about is if anyone likes it or not.

If you don't want it mentioned anymore, then don't bring it up.

As for the avatar, thanks. The center of it is the flower of life, which is part of sacred geometry and is a fascinating topic in itself worth looking into if anyone hasn't already.

reply to post by badmedia


“I enjoy the discussion and if you can show me an error in what I say I will be most thankful for it.”

Likewise

“If the banks books operated in the same manner as a business, then that is what you would call "Full reserve banking". But in fractional reserve banking, the banks are only required to keep/have a fraction of "money" they have loaned out. And when they balance their books, it is based on the fractional % rather than the full 100% as in full reserve banking.”

My take would be that most businesses borrow money and therefore buy assets, like real estate, equipment technology and therefore generate liabilities just like banks. Consequently, they would be closer to fractional reserve banking than full reserve banking. Furthermore, from a historical perspective most banks take far less risk than most other businesses.

Banks are required to keep a fraction/percentage of their customers’ deposits (not the money they have loaned out) in cash and highly liquid securities on hand for customer redemptions (the obvious theory behind this as that all customers don’t need to redeem their deposits at once).

My take would be that a bank’s books would essentially balance the same way regardless of whether fractional or full reserve banking was employed.

“Do I think those things should be allowed such as allowing the loan/collateral to be an asset which can be lent against? Absolutely not.”

Then you appear to disagree in general with the use of any leverage

“It's not that it explains how fractional banking works, I'm saying that it is only possible to happen in a fractional banking system.”

I really don’t think this is the case. You could theoretically have a crash will full reserve banking as well. In a way I think you might be mixing up the reserves involved with fractional reserve banking as if they were the same as a bank’s capital reserve requirements.

“The point about the interest money is that it is never created. The $100 that is loaned to you is created, but the $5 in interest is not created. That means in order for you to pay the $105 back, you must take $5 from someone else. But guess what? By system design someone is going to fail/go bankrupt.

More money is owed back to the banks than what actually exists. So, sure in your "profitable" business you are able to pay back the $105. So lets say that 2 people had loans of $100. $200 is created, but $210 is due back to the bank. If you pay back your $105, then it by default means the other person can only pay back $95.

So yes, you could with a profitable business pay back your part. But it comes at the expense of putting everyone else in debt/slavery. Is that acceptable to you? It's not to me. I am personally debt free and refuse to accept credit. I do without if that is what it means.

What it does is create a system of where there is never enough money.

The interest is actually the main point/kicker of the entire system. I mean money is obviously convenient and has it's purposes. But we need an honest monetary system(more at the bottom).”

Although I agree with some of you general ideas here I’m not sure how any kind of exchange based economy would work with your challenging parameters.
Unfortunately, when you have a society in which the exchange of good and services take place, with an increasing population to boot, I don’t believe that you can avoid the some of the same issues that you seem to imply are only due to fractional reserve banking. How does each new member of society come about their individual portion (quite possibly necessary for their survival) of a finite money supply, without taking or borrowing from another’s?

I substantially agree with the balance of your post. There are no easy answers, but our current system could have worked out substantially better than it has and with a number of well placed tweaks (mostly leaning towards more conservative and responsible standards) much better than that.

Regards

Just to interject something here. If you've read my last posts on this topic I was going on how the HUBZone program worked and all of this. Basically saying that if these congressmen and women are now businesses they can in effect qualify for a program to get government contracts. If they meet certain criteria.

To me all the criteria fit. Someone suggested looking into Cromwell Apts where Ron Paul also trades as. The answer is certain to perplex.

DETERMINATION OF WHETHER AN ADDRESS IS IN A HUBZONE 1515 OGDEN ST NW APT 126, Washington DC is located in Census Tract "11001002801" which IS HUBZone qualified.

map.sba.gov...

So now we have congressmen and women who can legally engage in insider trading. They are all their own corporations and can receive preferential treatment to ensure government contracts. What the hell?

I wanted to edit to add the following.

What Is the SBA HUBZone Program?

For qualified small businesses, the SBA HUBZone Program offers an excellent opportunity to secure government contracts. Although the Small Business Administration (SBA) maintains the HUBZone Empowerment Contracting Program, all federal buying agencies are part of the HUBZone Program and must abide by its requirements. The SBA Reauthorization Act of 1997 created the HUBZone program with the intention of promoting economic development in historically underutilized business zones by establishing preferences for government contracts in these areas. The Federal Acquisitions Regulation (FAR) gave HUBZone the ability to contract in January of 1999.

smallbusiness.dnb.com...

This is where you end up if you type Congress of the United States in the D&B search bar.




[edit on 7-3-2010 by jackflap]

Originally posted by InterestingRide
My take would be that most businesses borrow money and therefore buy assets, like real estate, equipment technology and therefore generate liabilities just like banks. Consequently, they would be closer to fractional reserve banking than full reserve banking. Furthermore, from a historical perspective most banks take far less risk than most other businesses.

I think you are missing the point. The point is that every time that money is created, the value of the newly created money is taken from the existing currency.

If there is $100 in circulation, and you create another $100, the value of the newly created money comes from the existing money. As such, it is a theft on everyone who has the existing currency.

What does it matter what people buy with the newly created money/loans? The problem is the theft itself that comes from the creation of money. It's a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich, not funds.

Money has no value on it's own. It's value is based on the amount of currency in supply(that is known about, they don't really announce they are doing it, but when you see a huge spending deficit, you can "bank" on it).

My take would be that a bank’s books would essentially balance the same way regardless of whether fractional or full reserve banking was employed.

Where did the bank get the money/value in order to give it away for it to be purchased to start with? In order to buy something, you have to exchange something of value to get it. So, where did the money that was used to buy that property get it's value?

In effect, the bank created that "value" from nothing, except that it takes from the existing currrency(that which is in your pocket/bank). So you are saying oh well they bought something, so they have value. But you are overlooking the fact that the value that was used to make the trade was stolen and didn't actually exist on it's own.

If I make counterfeit money and then I go out and buy a bunch of stuff that does have value with it, does that mean it's ok? I would be doing the exact same thing as what the bank does.

Hell, I can write checks all day long and get things of value to show for them. It's theft if I do it though. Heck, I'd even settle with loaning you the money I created, after all you are going to have to pay me the money for it, and if you don't I get the stuff you bought, and I didn't have to put in anything of actual value.

Then you appear to disagree in general with the use of any leverage

I disagree in general with any form of theft.

I really don’t think this is the case. You could theoretically have a crash will full reserve banking as well. In a way I think you might be mixing up the reserves involved with fractional reserve banking as if they were the same as a bank’s capital reserve requirements.

If you had full reserves then it means you are able to 100% cover all the money you owe to your customers. It means that if there was a bank run and every person came to your bank to get their money, each and every one of them would get their money - because that is what full reserves means.

Fractional reserves means they would only have enough to pay a portion of them all.

Although I agree with some of you general ideas here I’m not sure how any kind of exchange based economy would work with your challenging parameters.

Unfortunately, when you have a society in which the exchange of good and services take place, with an increasing population to boot, I don’t believe that you can avoid the some of the same issues that you seem to imply are only due to fractional reserve banking. How does each new member of society come about their individual portion (quite possibly necessary for their survival) of a finite money supply, without taking or borrowing from another’s?

But you haven't even asked what is the solution or better system. It's not that hard. For starters, imagine just this. The government can create the money from the treasury. As the value of that currency comes from the people anyway, it comes 100% debt free and without interest.

And look at that. Since 100% of income taxes goes directly towards paying the interest on the national debt, well guess what we no longer need? The income tax.

And with 1 simply move I have gotten rid of the income tax, not to mention the costs I've reduced in paperwork and manpower to not have to collect and process it all. Yes, I may kill an industry and H&R block, but it's either them or farmers and people who actually produce things of value and I choose the farmers over the thieves.

Now obviously inflation and deflation is going to be a problem. The gold standard was designed to keep congress from inflating, and now we have removed all things to keep them in check(not like they are today, but we don't want it to be that way tommorow either). So, now we regulate that the amount of currency in circulation is created in direct porportion to the amount of trade (GNP).

As the economy and amount of trade increases, so does the money supply. If the economy starts to decrease, then money is called in through legitimate forms of taxes(aka corporate taxes, trade tariffs and so no).

When the economy is doing well, and the money is being created, that money is put into the economy by paying for government and services that aren't everyday things(like gas taxes pay for roads etc). That would be like government buildings and things of that nature. Things which the public uses. Or as a break in the previous mentioned taxes, because the creation of money is a tax on the people by itself(referred to as the inflation tax). You could even give it to the poor and to help the poor, since they are the ones who suffer the most from the inflation tax.

The goal is to keep the prices stable. This is actually what the Federal reserve claims to do. But they obviously do not since the value of a dollar is only 4% the value it was in 1913. An apple doesn't cost the same price it did in 1913 anymore than it does as recent as when you were a child.

So, back to the simple $100 and apples. If the amount of apples increases to 20 and still only $100, then each apple only costs $5. So, in order to keep the amount of money in direct proportion we add in another $100 to bring the price back to $10 each. This would of course be on a large scale and everything as a whole, but I think you can get the general idea.

So what is used for loans? Savings. Yes a novel idea in this day and age to have, especially in amounts to where you can loan some out. But once you have removed the leech that sucks from the wealth of the people, suddenly prosperity and wealth is much more abundant. Since the people don't have to pay back every bit of money they use, suddenly it's in more of an abundance.

It is btw my opinion that any and all interest is wrong, but I know I can't have everything my way. Interest is theft. Once upon a time it was called usery.

I substantially agree with the balance of your post. There are no easy answers, but our current system could have worked out substantially better than it has and with a number of well placed tweaks (mostly leaning towards more conservative and responsible standards) much better than that.

Only if you remove the debt and interest is it possible. A system that is based on debt and interest has only 1 goal and 1 end - slavery.

Humans are this planets greatest resource, and that is exactly how they are treated and used - as a resource. And it all starts with economics.

reply to post by InterestingRide


Btw, originally with fractional banking it wasn't just notes of money they needed, but actual gold. All money was redeemable in gold.

It started out they needed a high % of gold backing the notes. This number dropped over the years. By 1970 it had reached I think 10% needed. Only 10% of the money in circulation needed to be backed in gold.

Well, I guess it kind of dawned on them that since the money was redeemable 100% in gold, it means that a person needed to only get 10% of the money supply in order to get 100% of the countries true wealth.

And so that was the end of the gold standard and money that was redeemable in gold - money with actual value. They blamed the gold standard on it and said it "failed", but in reality it's just another symptom of fractional banking and it's theft.

You must be makes joke? This must nots be! Wher does you get this strange beliefs? Please not one owns ATS believe this strangeness! Please say Hale Marys for this! Do this this very minutes!

Star for you badmedia. Thank you for elaborating on the banking system and not letting it go. You truly do see the underlying cause. The system is truly slavery at its best. Most people don't understand the reason they gave up black slavery in the first place was that more money could be made with everyone as slaves. You really don't have to write out a history of money in America as all info is readily available and this system is so so much older. A more consice piece on the solutions in a stand alone post
would be most welcome. Most people can never see that solutions do exist they always stick to what they know even when its burning down around them.

reply to post by ISHAMAGI

If you want a real solution how about something that stops using currency and debt all together that really only exists to create artificial scarcity and deny some a share of the resources that the planet we all share and are naturally a part produce and yield.

No matter what tweaks you do to this system it is still always going to leave hundreds of millions if not billions around the globe with nothing, all the while every conceivable resource is in total abundance!

So yeah it doesn’t matter how you tweak that system but the truth is even people like Ron Paul just want to tweak it to make it simpler and not necessarily more fair in a culture where mega multinational corporations have just as much power to effect our lives as any government.

All of which rise to power not through votes but currency and debt in the process of selectively distributing horded resources in a system that denies them to all to many people to favor a privileged few and most of all those that do the hording.

By the way as lovable as Ron Paul is, you all do realize he is right now in the midst of attempting to establish a political dynasty with plans of running again for President and his son taking a seat in the U.S. Senate.

For better or worse this good very well end up another Kennedy, Bush or Rockefeller type political dynasty.

Talks is cheap, and in the end people really do have to perform. Unfortunately that’s what our real system is about, people competing first for just a chance to then perform for a deliberately limited number of positions where one than can perform to be doled an allotment of over abundant resources that those who can’t find a job or where born in the wrong country, time or place don’t even get the chance to compete for.

Personally I think the world is so screwed up because no one believes it could ever be a perfect and ideal one and that’s ok.

No! It’s not ok, wake up people you are giving me ulcers already!






[edit on 7/3/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

So with the information that I came across, does the Supreme Court ruling that removes a cap on the contributions that corporations can contribute to a campaign now have any significance? Corporations can actually run for Congress.

So with the insider trading, and the corporate set up, these guys have unlimited resources at their disposal to do whatever they want. If nobody else sees the connection please let me know why. If you do see the connection let me know, because I see it too.

reply to post by jackflap


I looked at the link, and it says the hubzone is for small businesses to be considered first in providing services/products to government agencies. That is the part you bolded.

That they would be buying/paying for such services was already present. That ACT is to give the smaller businesses a chance.

Also from the link, it says this:

Maintain a listing of qualified small business that federal agencies can use to locate vendors

And this only goes to back up the reasons I mentioned before about the credit accounts and so on with the vendors.

It then goes on to list the requirements of being considered on the list and given the priority.

reply to post by badmedia


Badmedia,

First let me say that this has been a nice conversation to this point, but it has expanded into dialogue that is far beyond what my original comment on your statement was addressing. To remind both of us, I have pasted it below and as I originally stated, I don’t find it to be an accurate statement.
"Do you know how fractional banking works? I don't know what you know, but if you are unsure about that, then I can explain it. Banks are by law allowed to create money. The are allowed to loan out(create basically) more money than they actually have. And not just a little, 90%.

So if you go and you put $1000 in savings, the bank can turn around and loan out $9000(at interest). So, they basically just made $8000 on your $1000, not counting the interest. People think the bank is just going to get the interest they collect, but such is far from the truth."
I really don’t feel that I am missing any of your points, I just think the discussion has crept off track. I have been attempting to discuss the internal mechanics of fractional reserve banking and to some degree how a customer/borrowing works in a very similar way. Conversely, you have chosen to focus on the overall effects of fractional reserve banking, inflation/deflation and apples (just kidding).
So to not derail this thread any further, I will give some brief responses to the balance of your reply; but don’t feel obligated to respond.
“I think you are missing the point. The point is that every time that money is created, the value of the newly created money is taken from the existing currency.”
No, we are just talking about different things.

“If there is $100 in circulation, and you create another $100, the value of the newly created money comes from the existing money. As such, it is a theft on everyone who has the existing currency.”

“Money has no value on it's own. It's value is based on the amount of currency in supply(that is known about, they don't really announce they are doing it, but when you see a huge spending deficit, you can "bank" on it).”

I don’t think basic points like this really needed to be mentioned

My take would be that a bank’s books would essentially balance the same way regardless of whether fractional or full reserve banking was employed.




“Where did the bank get the money/value in order to give it away for it to be purchased to start with? In order to buy something, you have to exchange something of value to get it. So, where did the money that was used to buy that property get it's value?”

This isn’t relevant to my comment and answering would be like chasing a ghost.

In effect, the bank created that "value" from nothing, except that it takes from the existing currrency(that which is in your pocket/bank). So you are saying oh well they bought something, so they have value. But you are overlooking the fact that the value that was used to make the trade was stolen and didn't actually exist on it's own.

I understand your position, but in all honesty you really simplify this situation too much. A bank like any functioning business has capital (“there own money”) and they leverage this capital by making loans to borrowers and various investments in amounts that are essentially equal to total customer deposits. The money is not stolen, it is borrowed and they pay the customer/depositor a return that they are willing to accept for depositing those funds with the bank. You can say the money is stolen all you like; but it would take a fairly dull bulb to think a bank would offer an interest return of any kind to a depositor, if they could not use said funds to gain investment returns for themselves. Why would a bank pay a return to depositors, without the ability to invest it and only the ability to loose money? Would you pay a friend interest for the ability to just hold and protect his money that you would derive no benefit from and in fact, have the additional obligation of paying him interest?

“If I make counterfeit money and then I go out and buy a bunch of stuff that does have value with it, does that mean it's ok? I would be doing the exact same thing as what the bank does.

Hell, I can write checks all day long and get things of value to show for them. It's theft if I do it though. Heck, I'd even settle with loaning you the money I created, after all you are going to have to pay me the money for it, and if you don't I get the stuff you bought, and I didn't have to put in anything of actual value.”

These are just flippant statements.

“If you had full reserves then it means you are able to 100% cover all the money you owe to your customers. It means that if there was a bank run and every person came to your bank to get their money, each and every one of them would get their money - because that is what full reserves means.”

No not entirely true. As mentioned above a bank is not going to pay interest to someone if they can’t borrow those funds and invest them. The will have to invest in bonds and securities and those instruments have historically been far more volatile than real estate. If a bank was only permitted to invest in t-bills (which still have risk and can loose value), their business model would be almost undoable in today’s environment.

Fractional reserves means they would only have enough to pay a portion of them all.”

This is misleading. Did you read the WIKI link in my original post to you? The only real difference would be that the bank would have much more immediate liquidity and their capital and assets amounts would remain unchanged, but their capital would certainly grow much slower (which could force them to charge higher interest rates from any borrowers to maintain the bank as a going concern).

“But you haven't even asked what is the solution or better system. It's not that hard. For starters, imagine just this. The government can create the money from the treasury. As the value of that currency comes from the people anyway, it comes 100% debt free and without interest.

And look at that. Since 100% of income taxes goes directly towards paying the interest on the national debt, well guess what we no longer need? The income tax.

And with 1 simply move I have gotten rid of the income tax, not to mention the costs I've reduced in paperwork and manpower to not have to collect and process it all. Yes, I may kill an industry and H&R block, but it's either them or farmers and people who actually produce things of value and I choose the farmers over the thieves.”

These statements have been well publicized. You are aware that the Federal Reserve returns over 90% of its profits back to the Treasury? Your statement about eliminating income taxes is urban myth my friend and not very accurate. Yes, income tax revenue pays 100% of the interest expense on the National Debt, but that hundred percent is only about 35% of the income tax revenue received. Consequently the remaining 65% of the Govt.’s income tax receivables go towards other government expenditures.

answers.yahoo.com...

www.warresisters.org... (Here you’ll hear Eisenhower’s voice in your head & scream bloody MIC)

It’s late and I’m running out of gas. As for the rest of your post I can accept most of your ideas. Particularly identifying the problems caused by inflation/deflation (now there is one mean SOB we could definitely live without). I obviously realize that your ideas are meant to be of a cursory nature and there are others that would compliment them nicely.

Regards.


[edit on 8-3-2010 by InterestingRide]

reply to post by Mr Knowledge


It's understandable that people are going to be leery of all political candidates, given the state we're in. But, doesn't there come a point when you have to simply look at someone's track record, see it's consistent, and call it for what it is? Ron Paul has been consistent throughout his career. We see this in the bills he introduces, in the video footage on the Internet where he tackles an issue in Congress, and in his speeches and interviews with the media.

Anymore, I doubt there will be a politician that won't come under scrutiny for being a potential snake. I just hope it doesn't go too far and we find we've screwed ourselves over with all this concern over puppet masters, Illuminati, etc., etc, etc.

This particular thread has me going crazy. So today I made the decision to call D&B and ask them why the search results end up where they do. If you go to the contact information for D&B you will find the number.

I went through the menu's until I was connected with an operator. Before I was connected though, I was advised that my call will be monitored for quality assurances. Right.

So I was connected to an operator named Bill. I explained to him that I was not an actual D&B customer but I had a question that arose over the weekend with a friend of mine who was a D&B customer. I explained how the search results presented Congress of the United States also traded as Ron Paul comes up. I then went on to explain that the other names have strange results as well.

Now, I played it cool and said that my friend thought something was afoot and that I merely was looking for a logical answer to tell him. I said that I'm sure that it is just a glitch of some sort in the search engine. I let him know that I just wanted to put the issue to rest and be done with it because my friend and I got into a heated discussion about it.

Well, Bill pulled up the same results as we do. He then looked into the account and said it was inactive. He then went on to tell me that he has no idea where it originated from or why. He even searched Texas for Ron Paul and came up with zero results.

He offered that possibly Mr Paul opened the account to deal with rental properties or something and let the account go inactive. So I was left with more questions than I had when I called them. Now what the hell?

Edited to add that as soon as I posted this the telephone rang. Unknown Name and Unknown Number. I picked it up and said hello. Nothing but silence. I hung up. I'll keep us all updated as to any strange happenings.

[edit on 8-3-2010 by jackflap]

Originally posted by Eyesa2diffcolors
I have been researching this stuff for sum time now. I would suggest you view a seminar by a brit named John Harris. This topic is very complicated and not for the faint of heart.

A few points

1. Courts are nothing more than banks
2. Your birth certificate is a bond created at birth and is pooled and traded.
3. You are not your name(legal fiction) you are a soul inhabiting a body. You have a name. Big difference.
4. There are maxims of law(truth) and statutes of law (lies)
5. Appeals courts and Federal courts are the only courts that recognize the private side of law.
6. All is a Contract (EVERYTHING!)
7. No one makes you do anything! Your ignorance of the above mentioned is the trap. Understand contract and you win the battle.
8. Legalize is the laguege used in law. If you do not have a legal dictionary at hand you can not interperate the laws/lies.
9. To understand means to stand under. Give your power to another. Judge"Do you understand the charges?" answer yes and you grant him jurisdiction over you. You asked to be ruled over(CONTRACT)=Jurisdiction.
YOU ENTERED A CONTRACT ON HIS/HER TERMS!

Note: It takes a very good understanding to exercise your rights in court. I would not suggest blind faith in what someone tells you on this topic.

My view is everything is heading in the right direction. The fact this topic is even being discussed after being hidden for so long shows me that the world is waking up. I believe the white hats are hard at work bringing down the imposters. For those of you that expect the world to expose the truth out right, it will never happen. If the good people trying to take these people out were to come out and expose the truth of this grand deception. The people would hang every person in government including the good guys. This is playing out before our eyes most just can't see it. All is good!

This is exactly what I am doing with a court case that I have coming up. Yesterday I went to the court house on a fact finding mission and you should see the deception, outright lies and misdirection that was pushed on me.

The more I came across it, the more I knew I was on the right path!

Do you have a link to the seminar by John Harris? I would greatly appreciate it if you do.