It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
Originally posted by hawkiye
State run/owned banks are not the answer. As long as government has control of the money whether state or federal it is the same thing we have now greed and corruption will prevail. The answer is a free market in currency. It is nobodies business what anyone uses for currency but those who are participating in the transaction period!
No free market so that we do not end up with this same exact mess in say, 50 years. No private control over our coin period anymore is the way forward.
Govt will takeover the printing and issuance of currency so no private azzhats can take it over again.
This is the much needed nationalization of our coin.edit on 27-3-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Mary Rose
Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
That is apart of the long range plan, implement in one state then after 2014 timeframe alot of other states to start their own as well . . .
Can you post a link for this plan?
Originally posted by hawkiye
Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
Originally posted by hawkiye
State run/owned banks are not the answer. As long as government has control of the money whether state or federal it is the same thing we have now greed and corruption will prevail. The answer is a free market in currency. It is nobodies business what anyone uses for currency but those who are participating in the transaction period!
No free market so that we do not end up with this same exact mess in say, 50 years. No private control over our coin period anymore is the way forward.
Govt will takeover the printing and issuance of currency so no private azzhats can take it over again.
This is the much needed nationalization of our coin.edit on 27-3-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)
You have no clue what your talking about if you think free markets caused the mess we are in today. Giving the state a monopoly on the money is no different then giving the feds a monopoly on the moneyl THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE TODAY. All fiat money systems have failed in history and lasted only about forty years. Government intervention has only served to enforce thier monopoly and regulate any free market out of existence which is why we haven;t had a free market in over 50 years. AND THAT IS WHY WE ARE IN THIS MESS TODAY! If you transfer this nonsense to the states you will have the same mess in a few years as we have today.
Please educate yourselves Central control of the money supply is a recipe for disaster and always has been. it has failed every time in history and allowed banksters and politicians to rob the wealth of the people and nations. It is truly sad to see the ignorance on this subject and people wanting to be free who will in thier ignorance willingly put themselves right back into the same financial slavery and bondage they wish to be free from.
Sound money and personal responsibility are the only things needed. Why do you persist in thinking others should control your money and issue it? Why would you trust others not to inflate that money and steal your wealth when it has happened every single time in history, and is happening right before your eyes as we speak? Why do you think a state would do anything different then the fed if given control over the money? If that is what one wish to do then they deserve to be robbed as we all are today and State owned/run banks will do the same thing as the feds have done.
Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
I don't know about you but I'd rather trust Government to control our money then have some foreigner with an agenda.
Bankers hate socialism as it takes the power away from them and transfers it to the people. They love capitalism because they can use it to exploit every single weakness we have for their own financial gain.
"For 10 years, William Schmidt, a statistics professor at Michigan State University, has looked at how U.S. students stack up against students in other countries in math and science. "In fourth-grade, we start out pretty well, near the top of the distribution among countries; by eighth-grade, we're around average, and by 12th-grade, we're at the bottom of the heap, outperforming only two countries, Cyprus and South Africa."
:Source
No teacher, but every textbook, left behind
...More generally, the quality of the twelve most popular science textbooks for middle-schoolers is so low, Hubisz concluded, that none had an acceptable level of accuracy....
An exasperated William Bennetta explained why so many teachers accept inferior textbooks from these publishers, "[T]he major schoolbook companies… have long recognized that the teacher corps in America includes some desperate dumbbells, and the companies have learned to produce books that the dumbbells will like....
...Dewey's philosophy had evolved from Hegelian idealism to socialist materialism, and the purpose of the school was to show how education could be changed to produce little socialists and collectivists instead of little capitalists and individualists. It was expected that these little socialists, when they became voting adults, would dutifully change the American economic system into a socialist one.
In order to do so he analyzed the traditional curriculum that sustained the capitalist, individualistic system and found what he believed was the sustaining linchpin -- that is, the key element that held the entire system together: high literacy. To Dewey, the greatest obstacle to socialism was the private mind that seeks knowledge in order to exercise its own private judgment and intellectual authority. High literacy gave the individual the means to seek knowledge independently. It gave individuals the means to stand on their own two feet and think for themselves. This was detrimental to the "social spirit" needed to bring about a collectivist society. Dewey wrote in Democracy and Education, published in 1916:
When knowledge is regarded as originating and developing within an individual, the ties which bind the mental life of one to that of his fellows are ignored and denied.
www.ordination.org...
Foreign control over our central bank now has caused the mess, capitalism is not the answer here, nationalization only.
I am saying and calling for the US Federal Government takes over the central bank as that is the plan.
People like you want to privatize everything just so that it would be that much easier to destroy our system from the inside out.
I don't know about you but I'd rather trust Government to control our money then have some foreigner with an agenda.
Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
Foreign control over our central bank now has caused the mess, capitalism is not the answer here, nationalization only.
I am saying and calling for the US Federal Government takes over the central bank as that is the plan.
Amazing! So you think the same people (feds) who gave control of the money to these foreign interests in the first place will somehow be better the stewards of the money themselves... Sigh! - Private interests conencted to both The Rothschilds control our system now, the plan that is being drafted right now ELIMININATES FOREIGN CONTROL OVER OUR COIN AND RETURN IT TO THE US FEDERAL GOVT.
People like you want to privatize everything just so that it would be that much easier to destroy our system from the inside out.
And how is that possible if I have control over what I chose to use as currency? How is it anyone's business but mine how I chose to conduct trade and transactions as long as I am not harming anyone? This would minimize corruption as people would be free to take thier business elsewhere if someone was corrupt instead of being forced to use an already corrupt monopoly. - The monopoly over our currency currently is coming to an end.
I don't know about you but I'd rather trust Government to control our money then have some foreigner with an agenda.
Unbelievable! So the corrupt government that has already sold us out to foreign interests is more trustworthy... Sigh I am speechless...
Also you have no clue what capitalism is. What you call capitalism is actually socialism/fascism however the media has blamed everything on so called capitalism when we haven't had that in over half a century.
Free market capitalism works and it is proven in history. I find it amazing people here who live in a highly regulated society with all its corruptions plagued by government intervention in the name of protecting the people when in fact it is to protect the markets of thier politically connected cronies ( Hello... to big to fail?) think the answer is too look to those same people who namely government who have brought us to the brink of economic disaster and want more government control and regulation... Sigh!
The definition of free market capitalism is free markets where people have a choice and government does not intervene to give anyone an unfair advantage under the guise of protecting the consumer. Markets regulate themselves by the quality and service they provide. If quality and service suck or are corrupt people take thier business elsewhere. The only way you can stay in business is to provide a quality product or service as opposed to the socialist government eliminating your competition through regulation and allowing you to stay in business when you should have failed. Like the Big financial institutions they bailed out. Compare this to trusting government in light of what we have today and the choice is obvious! - Government's lack of intervention allows private interest time and time again to do whatever the hell it wants to unchequed.
edit on 27-3-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)
The top 10 flaws of
neoclassical economics
pastedGraphic
1. Money monopoly = free market
Neoclassical economics calls our current system under a private monetary monopoly a free market. Of course nothing could be further from the truth. The monetary system is an overlay on top of the economic system. Economic systems create value through market activity, but the monetary system on top of them determine who captures that value. Neoclassical economics completely ignores the overlay and the fact that it is controlled by an entrenched private monopoly.
2. Ignores that money comes from nothing but debt
Economics does not address the fact that all money comes from debt. It assumes that base currency (M0, core money) is just a free-flowing medium of exchange that apparently comes from the US Treasury. It does not. It comes from the Federal Reserve backed by debt.
3. Ignores the artificial scarcity condition
Economics ignores how a debt-based monetary system imposes scarcity on countries and populations. There is never enough money to pay back all the debt, so everyone is forced to jump on the hamster wheel, scrambling to find more money to pay back debt. This dynamic is perpetual. It never stops until the system crashes. It need not be this way.
4. Equates net worth with value creation
Economics ignores how the financial class and others serving the upper end of the capital structure capture more money simply because they have entrenched power. They extract value. They do not create it. Economics is correct that participants in the economic system create value, but it misses the fact that the monetary system on top of the economic system determines who captures that value.
5. Assumes free, rational, economic actors by ignoring power differential of debt
The power differential caused by the monetary system is ignored by economics. This is the only reason the system is erroneously called a “free market.” The monetary system is entirely centripetal, sucking all power to the center, the top tiered financiers. People are in servitude in a very controlling market, not a free market.
6. Ignores the instability of having a pure debt-based monetary system
Economists ignore that the economic system is guaranteed to boom, bust, and eventually end because the monetary system on top of it is completely unstable and fundamentally flawed. It depends upon increasing debt. It cannot increase forever, and it can collapse to zero since people have no sovereign money.
7. Ignores the wealth illusion
By not addressing the issue of debt-based money, economics fools people into believing the digits in their bank accounts represent wealth. The fact is they represent a conditional liability, i.e. somebody else’s debt. This becomes obvious during deflation. The illusion is reinforced during inflationary periods.
8. Ignores perpetual exponential growth
Economists inconceivably ignore the most severe flaw of the monetary system that drives our economic system—it requires exponential growth. This guarantees eventual failure, but neoclassical economics conveniently assumes that problem away.
9. Ignores perpetual increasing scale
As a result of perpetual exponential growth, institutions in the system continually get bigger and bigger. We saw this as the economic system made towns, counties, and states irrelevant through the last century, and we are now seeing it as mega banks and corporations are now making national governments irrelevant. People are now living as tiny cogs in a machine of incomprehensible scale. Everything in life has been monetized, so things that don’t generate bank credit get devalued (spirituality, psychology, rest, joy, play, etc).
10. Ignores perpetual increasing velocity
Another problem from exponential growth is perpetually increasing velocity. The system has to chug faster and harder as it continues to grow. This means human life has to chug faster and harder. The most obvious manifestation of this is the endless, hectic commutes every morning to jobs we despise. We feel frustration, sometimes rage, toward our fellow commuters. That is just one small example of how systemic velocity affects the human spirit
csper.org...
Originally posted by crimvelvet
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
It does not mater WHO controls the money as long as two things happen:
#1. There is NO increase in the money supply - FREEZE IT or tie it to gold and silver.
#2. NO Fractional Reserve Banking. Make banks adhere to the SAME rules of contract that the rest of us have to.
In a real contract there must be "consideration" or value from BOTH sides or the contract is null and void.
most if not ALL banking contracts - mortgages, business loans and ;1/2 of the Federal debt are technically NULL and VOID by the laws of this country.
Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
Out of the nations 235 yr history we were not under a central bank for about 95 of those years and guess what, it worked beautifully.
The WHO does not control nor dictate monetary policy so recheque your facts on that,
This is a confirmed deal to erase private control and people have problems? Evidently no one cares about their rights or freedoms enough to care and will use any oppourtunity to continually trash this great nation.
The nations greatest financial minds without an agenda are working on this plan.
The end of privitazation of our coin is over and done.
edit on 27-3-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by hawkiye
Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
Out of the nations 235 yr history we were not under a central bank for about 95 of those years and guess what, it worked beautifully.
The WHO does not control nor dictate monetary policy so recheque your facts on that,
This is a confirmed deal to erase private control and people have problems? Evidently no one cares about their rights or freedoms enough to care and will use any oppourtunity to continually trash this great nation.
The nations greatest financial minds without an agenda are working on this plan.
The end of privitazation of our coin is over and done.
edit on 27-3-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)
There is nothing wrong with private money as long as there is no a government enforced monopoly on the currency. The problem lies in the fact that government enforces a monopoly of the private interests, in our case the Federal Reserve. You are talking about taking it out the hands of the Federal reserve and into the hands government, state or federal it doesn't matter they will do the same thing the Federal reserve is doing and print and use credit expansion to blow up another bubble period. It's the same hooker with a different dress on and different color lipstick.
You claim the plan is to decentralize, ok great I agree but how do "you" propose to do it? The only way to decentralize money is to end the monopoly of it by banks and or governments period!
And who are these so called greatest financial minds, and where have they been while the Austrian school of economics with people like Mises, Rothbard, Ron Paul, etc have been predicting every recession and depression to a tee and been preaching the solution for decades?
And what is your supposed plan? Oh that's right you can't tell us we must have faith.... Sigh. Dude you have no credibility and it is obvious from your posts you do not understand the current monetary system and what it would take to return to sound money.edit on 27-3-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)
This plan is not mine but a plan that's been getting drawn up for nearly 30 years now. I understand our monetary system better then most. It is you who want to privatize every aspect of our nation.
Every market crisis dating to 1933 has been caused by private control over our coin and to keep on allowing private interest over our coin further errodes freedom, democracy and has us time and time again answering to outsiders. They have been manipulating the market every time they get a bug up their tail. Privitization in this case has failed our nation. Privately control over our banks is the problem.
they can no longer print money "out of thin air" with no real collateral behind it.
By defending them makes you an instant enemy of The United States Of America and all free people and makes you apart of the problem and not apart of the soulution.
When business and capitalism threatens Government that is a dictatorship and when Govt threatens business and capitalism it is democracy, what I specifically mean by that is that when private interest who are only looking out for themselves only it is a dictatorship.
This will be the way forward and quite frankly do not care who likes it or who does not as this is an American issue above all else.
Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
This plan is not mine but a plan that's been getting drawn up for nearly 30 years now. I understand our monetary system better then most. It is you who want to privatize every aspect of our nation.
Prove there is a plan. No you don't understand the monetary system. History has proven the private sector is more efficient less corrupt and careful then government in every way, and that is the way our country operated for the first 150 years with a few exceptions like the civil war. - No, it will not be revealed as it's being kept offline so that it cannot be circumvented.
Every market crisis dating to 1933 has been caused by private control over our coin and to keep on allowing private interest over our coin further errodes freedom, democracy and has us time and time again answering to outsiders. They have been manipulating the market every time they get a bug up their tail. Privitization in this case has failed our nation. Privately control over our banks is the problem.
Once again you display your complete ignorance. Market crisis's have little to do with who controls the coin it is mostly inherent in fiat currency and their need for inflation to perpetuate. Government forced monopoly of a private banking cartel is what has failed not simple free market privatization. The supposed market crisis's you speak of up to 1933 are laughable and totally insignificant in comparison to the 1933 depression and subsequent recessions every 10 years or so since then. They were regional and local and not national and yes due to private banks issuing fiat money unscrupulously. However there was a free market then and guess what? Those banks went out of business like they were supposed to and there was no such thing as too big to fail and government did not enforce a monopoly on using them as they do today with the Federal reserve so customers took their business elsewhere and the entire nation was not effected as it has been since 1933. We remained a prosperous nation until then. However the few times there was a national crisis is when government intervened like in the revolutionary war and the civil war it was only then and the issuing of fiat currency that caused national crisis and recession and both times the government was issuing the currency.
What part of; the federal government sanctions and perpetuates the Federal Reserve Banking cartel do you not understand? Yet you claim the so called plan that can't be revealed will bring back control to the "federal government". Why in the world would we want those crooks in charge? And how does this plan proposes to get them to cut their benefactors the federal reserve out all of sudden? The people will not vote them out (there's democracy for you) So even if this were true it is unworkable right there. There is a reason democracy is not mentioned in the constitution.
they can no longer print money "out of thin air" with no real collateral behind it.
Study some history dude. The American government has printed money also "out of thin air". the people cannot control the so called government. The power to control money needs to be taken away from not only the banksters but the government also. Getting rid of the banksters requires a complete replacement of government because they are in collusion. The Rothschilds banking dynasty owns the Federal government.
-The Rothschilds own and control The Federal Reserve and that is how the own the US Federal Govt, you just admitted to me the one thing you claim does not exist.
By defending them makes you an instant enemy of The United States Of America and all free people and makes you apart of the problem and not apart of the soulution.
Apparently you have not read a thing I wrote or you are severely mentally challenged... Sigh! I am not defending the banskters.
When business and capitalism threatens Government that is a dictatorship and when Govt threatens business and capitalism it is democracy, what I specifically mean by that is that when private interest who are only looking out for themselves only it is a dictatorship.
No when government threatens private business that is marxism. When Business and government collude to have unfair advantages in the market place you have fascism. In other words government forces a monopoly so certain politically connected businesses can take over the market and oppress the masses because they have not real competition.
Your a friggen marxist... Sigh! Governments only purpose is for mutual defense and to protect free trade not to force citizens into some marxist utopian BS at the point of a gun. Government intervention has already destroyed this nation and idiots want more of it and claim that is the fix. Unbelievable! I'd tell you to read the constitution but you are to mentally challenged to understand it.
--OK, let's privatize FEMA, DOD, NSA, and every aspect of Govt and leave the people powerless.
This will be the way forward and quite frankly do not care who likes it or who does not as this is an American issue above all else.
Ah yes and the marxist doesn't care about anyone else and wants to bring government force to bear to implement his ridiculous and convoluted ideas... Big sigh! Good luck with that dude because people like you who push this garbage will cause a civil war in America if you persist.
edit on 28-3-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)
It does matter who controls the money because every time in history central control was given to government or private banksters it has ended in disaster.
CHANGES IN THE MONEY SUPPLY
We now come to another crucial aspect of Mises's theory of money. Indeed, it is a uniquely distinguishing feature of his monetary theory, one that is not shared by other modern schools of economic thought. Because money is not capital, he concluded that an increase of the money supply confers no identifiable social value.
"An increase in the quantity of money can no more increase the welfare of the members of a community, than a diminution of it can decrease their welfare."
... Production goods derive their value from that of their products. Not so money; for no increase in the welfare of the members of a society can result from the availability of an additional quantity of money. The laws which govern the value of money are different from those which govern the value of production goods and from those which govern the value of consumption goods (p. 84).
www.econlib.org...
NO NEW MONEY IS REQUIRED!
On the very next page of Human Action, Mises discussed the free market's use of whatever quantity of money is presently in presently circulation. "As the operation of the market tends to determine the final state of money's purchasing power at the height at which the supply of and the demand for money coincide, there can never be an excess or deficiency of money. Each individual and all individuals together always enjoy fully the advantages which they can derive from indirect exchange and the use of money, no matter whether the total quantity of money is great or small." The conclusion is obvious, and he makes it: "The quantity of money available in the whole economy is always sufficient to secure for everybody all that money does and can do" (p. 421).
I emphasize this because there are economic commentators and analysts who claim to represent Mises's position on monetary theory, but who are proponents of the expansion of money by the State or by the fractional reserve banking system. They argue that society can and does benefit from such an expansion of money. Make no mistake about this: anyone who argues that a change in the money supply conveys either net social benefits or net social costs has repudiated Mises's explicit statement to the contrary in his earlier writings, and has repudiated Mises's denial in his later writings regarding anyone's ability to make such a scientific judgment. He who defends, in the name of Mises, government or central bank policies that deliberately promote either monetary inflation or monetary deflation has two obligations: (1) to show why his recommended policy is really consistent with Mises's economic theory; (2) to suggest reasons that led Mises to make such a serious mistake about the implications of his own theory.
Mises was in favor of free markets. He did not recommend civil laws against voluntary exchange. Therefore, he did not oppose gold mining. He did not recommend that the State prohibit miners from adding to the quantity of money. But he readily acknowledged that any increase of the money supply from gold mining will inflict losses on some participants in the economy — participants who were not parties in the original transaction of selling new gold into the economy. In this sense, changes in the money cannot be neutral. There will inevitably be winners and losers.
Mises stressed the following fact in his theory of money: new money enters an economy at specific points, i.e., through specific voluntary exchanges. New money does not appear magically in equal percentages in all people's bank accounts or under their mattresses. Money spreads unevenly, and this process has varying effects on individuals, depending on whether they receive early or late access to the new money. This was one of Mises's original contributions to monetary theory, one that is ignored by all other schools of economic analysis..... Mises on Money
Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
Dude your in your own little world aren't you. You don't even argue with what I say, you just make crap up and then argue against it... Your like the homeless guy on the corner talking to himself. I guess it is pointless to continue to argue with ignorance and mental incapacity...
Hmmm maybe this guys is a sock puppet. No coherent argument that relates to anything just a bunch of babbling and insults. Maybe i am the sucker here.edit on 28-3-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)