Post: #1

Does it have absolute control? If you rob the people who own it, what are the chances of staying alive.

Post: #2

I watched a documentary recently called The Money Masters. It's old, but goes into great detail about the Federal Reserve and some of the conspiracies behind our financial system.





To answer you question, yes they pretty much have absolute control. They print our money and our government pays them plus interest for it. It is run by some of the wealthiest and most powerful people in the world. They can more or less cause economic booms and depressions whenever they want.

Post: #3

Read zerohedge daily for news on how the Fed influences everything and everyone.

This link:

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/pow...nager.html

Also explains things quite well.

Post: #4

If you want the basics of the Federal Reserve try Wikipedia. If you want to go more in depth, try this book: http://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Temple-Fed...671675567. Word of warning: you're not going to find any deep dark conspiracy theories.

The Federal Reserve isn't "run" by anyone. It's the United States' central bank and it's run by a board of governors, whose members are chosen by the president and confirmed by the senate. Central banks do two things: they conduct monetary policy and they oversee the commercial banking sector. One of the reasons that the Fed is open to so many conspiracy theories is that it exists somewhere in between private organization and government agency. The reason is that if the government had explicit control of the money supply, they'd be forever inflating. People like to complain about the Fed increasing the money supply, but just imagine if congress controlled the printing press.

Post: #5

(12-20-2011 05:21 PM)j r Wrote:  If you want the basics of the Federal Reserve try Wikipedia. If you want to go more in depth, try this book: http://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Temple-Fed...671675567. Word of warning: you're not going to find any deep dark conspiracy theories.

The Federal Reserve isn't "run" by anyone. It's the United States' central bank and it's run by a board of governors, whose members are chosen by the president and confirmed by the senate. Central banks do two things: they conduct monetary policy and they oversee the commercial banking sector. One of the reasons that the Fed is open to so many conspiracy theories is that it exists somewhere in between private organization and government agency. The reason is that if the government had explicit control of the money supply, they'd be forever inflating. People like to complain about the Fed increasing the money supply, but just imagine if congress controlled the printing press.

Finally an accurate definition of the Fed. Thank you. It doesn't "print" money. It can increase the quantity of money in circulation by buying back bonds or it can decrease the quantity of money in circulation by selling bonds.

That movie Zeitgeist is filled with lies and people are misquoted. What a piece of shit.

Post: #6

(12-20-2011 08:26 PM)UgSlayer Wrote:  

(12-20-2011 05:21 PM)j r Wrote:  If you want the basics of the Federal Reserve try Wikipedia. If you want to go more in depth, try this book: http://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Temple-Fed...671675567. Word of warning: you're not going to find any deep dark conspiracy theories.

The Federal Reserve isn't "run" by anyone. It's the United States' central bank and it's run by a board of governors, whose members are chosen by the president and confirmed by the senate. Central banks do two things: they conduct monetary policy and they oversee the commercial banking sector. One of the reasons that the Fed is open to so many conspiracy theories is that it exists somewhere in between private organization and government agency. The reason is that if the government had explicit control of the money supply, they'd be forever inflating. People like to complain about the Fed increasing the money supply, but just imagine if congress controlled the printing press.

Finally an accurate definition of the Fed. Thank you. It doesn't "print" money. It can increase the quantity of money in circulation by buying back bonds or it can decrease the quantity of money in circulation by selling bonds.

That movie Zeitgeist is filled with lies and people are misquoted. What a piece of shit.

Yup. It buys bonds when it's lowering interest rates. Buying bonds increases the amount of the money in the hands of commercial banks. Higher supply of money according to the laws of supply = a lower cost of credit. Thereby lowering commercial interest rates. The opposite is true when they want to raise interest rates, they sell bonds to banks at a discount instead.

Quote:To answer you question, yes they pretty much have absolute control. They print our money and our government pays them plus interest for it. It is run by some of the wealthiest and most powerful people in the world. They can more or less cause economic booms and depressions whenever they want.

All members of the Federal Reserve are appointed by the Government of the day. The Rockefeller's, Rothschild's and the "Illuminati" have nothing to do with it.

The Federal Reserve tries to prevent booms and busts my adopting counter-cyclical monetary policy. Eg. if the economy is performing strongly they increase interest rates to raise the cost of credit and slow down spending therefore avoiding a boom from occurring. Of course they can fail to do this successful such as before the GFC when their interest rates should have been a lot higher. Right now in the aftermath of the recession they are running an expansionary monetary policy with very very low interest rates to promote consumption spending to try and save the economy and save jobs.

Most countries have central banks just like the Federal Reserve
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_central_banks

It's all really simple stuff, it annoys me when those from the Austrian School of Economics (a non-mainstream school of supply-side economics most advocated famously by Friedrich Hayek) who want to abolish the Federal Reserve spread the myth that it's party of some shadowy New World Order run by the super rich and the Jews for their own benefit.

The main criticism of central banks is that human political interference can fuck with the money supply as happened under the Bush administration, and that central banks cause never ending inflation by creating a fiat currency against nothing of intrinsic value (eg. Gold) which causes never ending inflation. And that expansions and contractions in the money supply cause the booms and busts of the business cycle. Demand side or Keynesian economists (which dominates non-American and non-Republican politics) advocate that the business cycle is inherently unstable when left completely in the hands of the private sector and calls for monetary policy actions by a central bank and budgetary policy from governments to stabilize the business cycle by operating counter-cyclically.

This is fairly balanced take on central banking. I outlined both pro's and cons here. I'm supporter of the central banking system as long as it's monetary policy decisions are not influenced by the ruling government. Thankfully this is true in MOST cases.

I hope this explains the Federal Reserve well. Questions?

Post: #7

(12-20-2011 10:42 AM)Andreas Wrote:  Does it have absolute control? If you rob the people who own it, what are the chances of staying alive.

They don't have absolute control. Their purpose is to stimulate the economy by either selling/ buying bonds (main tool), targeting interest rates, or changing the amount of reserves banks are required to hold in relation to the amount of liabilities they possess on there balance sheet.
It's owned by the U.S. government so you'd have to know someone who works around the Federal Reserves vault if you want to have access to it.
I wouldn't recommend robbing it. Eseentially, you'd be robbing from tons of banks in the United States since they are required to keep there required reserves with the FED. There are 12 Federal Reserve banks in the U.S.
I would imagine the security is much higher here then at your local bank.

Post: #8

(12-21-2011 03:19 AM)Sly Wrote:  

(12-20-2011 10:42 AM)Andreas Wrote:  Does it have absolute control? If you rob the people who own it, what are the chances of staying alive.

They don't have absolute control. Their purpose is to stimulate the economy by either selling/ buying bonds (main tool), targeting interest rates, or changing the amount of reserves banks are required to hold in relation to the amount of liabilities they possess on there balance sheet.
It's owned by the U.S. government so you'd have to know someone who works around the Federal Reserves vault if you want to have access to it.
I wouldn't recommend robbing it. Eseentially, you'd be robbing from tons of banks in the United States since they are required to keep there required reserves with the FED. There are 12 Federal Reserve banks in the U.S.
I would imagine the security is much higher here then at your local bank.

The Fed is not a Govt agency. The Govt has no explicit control over it. The Fed works with the Dept of Treasury to keep transactions going that is all. The USA Govt must work through the Treasury to work with the Fed.

WHY WOULD THE USA GOVT (or any Govt for that matter) LOAN ITS SELF MONEY AT INTEREST!!! Why would you charge yourself to loan yourself money!!

When bridges are crumbling and roads need to be replaces why the hell would somebody pay to loan itself cash!!!

Currency is a soverign right that any nation has the right to implement. Currency is just a government decree of what is accepted for the payment of taxes. This can be anything from a gold coin to a leaf of a tree. This is the only stipulation that gives the Fed any power - which is the fact that its own Federal Reserve notes (money) is accepted as payment for taxes by the USA Govt.

It does not matter if the Board of Governors are appointed. In any private bank branch managers are appointed to and given special powers and salaries but they are not giving payouts. The shareholders in the banks are given payouts. If the the Fed was a true government body then the Fed would be paying its percived "owner" (The American people/ USA Govt) dividends - but yet we pay the Fed for access to our own money??

Quote:Not Private and Not for Profit?

The Fed’s website insists that it is not a private corporation, is not operated for profit, and is not funded by Congress. But is that true? The Federal Reserve was set up in 1913 as a "lender of last resort" to backstop bank runs, following a particularly bad bank panic in 1907. The Fed’s mandate was then and continues to be to keep the private banking system intact; and that means keeping intact the system’s most valuable asset, a monopoly on creating the national money supply. Except for coins, every dollar in circulation is now created privately as a debt to the Federal Reserve or the banking system it heads.4 The Fed’s website attempts to gloss over its role as chief defender and protector of this private banking club, but let’s take a closer look. The website states:

* "The twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by Congress as the operating arms of the nation’s central banking system, are organized much like private corporations – possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year."

* "[The Federal Reserve] is considered an independent central bank because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms."

* "The Federal Reserve’s income is derived primarily from the interest on U.S. government securities that it has acquired through open market operations. . . . After paying its expenses, the Federal Reserve turns the rest of its earnings over to the U.S. Treasury."5

So let’s review:

1. The Fed is privately owned.

Its shareholders are private banks. In fact, 100% of its shareholders are private banks. None of its stock is owned by the government.

2. The fact that the Fed does not get "appropriations" from Congress basically means that it gets its money from Congress without congressional approval, by engaging in "open market operations."

Here is how it works: When the government is short of funds, the Treasury issues bonds and delivers them to bond dealers, which auction them off. When the Fed wants to "expand the money supply" (create money), it steps in and buys bonds from these dealers with newly-issued dollars acquired by the Fed for the cost of writing them into an account on a computer screen. These maneuvers are called "open market operations" because the Fed buys the bonds on the "open market" from the bond dealers. The bonds then become the "reserves" that the banking establishment uses to back its loans. In another bit of sleight of hand known as "fractional reserve" lending, the same reserves are lent many times over, further expanding the money supply, generating interest for the banks with each loan. It was this money-creating process that prompted Wright Patman, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee in the 1960s, to call the Federal Reserve "a total money-making machine." He wrote:

"When the Federal Reserve writes a check for a government bond it does exactly what any bank does, it creates money, it created money purely and simply by writing a check."

3. The Fed generates profits for its shareholders.

Source:http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?c...&aid=10489

The gig was up after 2008. When the Fed explicitly was using the taxpayer to bailout its Wall Street bredren. It was throwing us paper to help shore up its member banks while they denied credit to the real economy and thus plunged the USA into a recession. This is when many regular people started to use logic to see the system was bullshit.

My uncle owns a Bank in the West Indies with 4 other partners, he sits on his ass and his returns each year pay for his lifestyle, it can be 15 million upward to 35million+ depending how good the year was (but he always gets his cut, does not matter how shitty the year was). The USA by the perceived structure of the Fed be getting payouts each year its Economy grows, since it isn't just the USA whom is purchasing bonds, the globe is purchasing bonds from the Fed also (through other private central banks).

Inflation will be present in any currency if it is not restricted or backed by anything of real wealth. The USA restricted its inflation levels by being tied to the gold standard for many decades, it could only print/borrow for how much Gold it had stashed away. Of course the USA overreached and thus gold cover their Gold positions and abandoned the system into the wild west situation we have now.

Fiat money which the world runs on is backed by nothing, if it had any real backing it would be restricted to the tangible wealth that was produced in the real World. If the world can output 60 Trillion then there is no base for the shadow debt of the globe to be 400 Trillion to 1 Quadrillion dollars (nobody knows the exact number).

Where did all that money go? In our old ages we will see that it has been the biggest swingle in Human history. Trillions of dollars are being nickled and dimed from us evrey year to go into pockets of people nobody really knows about. This isn't no illuminati or conpsiracy bullshit.... Its greed.. To sit and think a gang of folks can't be so greedy to steal and plunder all of humanity is rich - please send me over of your rose colored glasses.

Quote:...maximum employment and stable prices....

- Fed mandate

What a joke.

Unemployment levels in true terms sit at around 23% ... Underemployment (which IMO is worse) is close to 47%. Wages have decreased and prices have skyrocketed at around 7-8% per year in true terms. The Fed is a fraud. Plain and simple.

Quote:Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes her laws.
- Mayer Amschel Rothschild

Post: #9

Summary:
Fed was chartered in 1913, and came into life 1914. Originally stemming from the banking issues of that period.
Then later it was given the mandate of maximum employment and price stability.

The reason why people are miffed at the Fed is that they are not living up to their mandates, and that most people claim to be experts about the Fed but in reality don't know anything about it.

Conspiracy theories aside (yes the Fed does have "stockholders", as banks are required, by the Fed, to deposit a calculated portion of money into the Fed, and then own X amount of shares, they may not sell these shares or buy these shares, so in reality they aren't really shares, merely insurance from the Fed for the size of whatever institution it is, and yes, a dividend is paid of 6%)
Anyways, the Fed, particularly Ben Bernanke, truly believes in Keynesian economics, one small problem with that, the money multiplier is less than 1 now, and they are going about it the wrong way creating moral hazard.

Moral hazard: Pretend you're a bank, and you made some risky bets, and you are about to fail because of those bets, but now the Fed comes in and saves you, but you have to PROMISE you won't do it again! What is going to keep you from doing it again? (Cue Basel III)

The Fed themselves look at a variety of indicators, but their main argument is to look at t-bills, and compare them to the inflation protected ones, and measure inflation from that. One problem, the Fed is ACTIVELY manipulating the t-bill market through Large Scale Asset Purchase program, and the new maturity extension program (operation twist2).
The majority of the FOMC (The committee that has voting rights for each year on Fed policy, rotates every year) believe that things such as food and energy are too sensitive to short term movements in the economy that they decide against considering it when seeing if a program would have an effect on inflation. HOWEVER, numerous members of the FOMC, Plosser & Fisher specifically, have stated that if they saw a reason for a higher estimate in long term producer index and consumer index, then they would have to reconsider their stances on current monetary policy decisions.

Regarding unemployment, Ben Bernanke himself has stated that they have done all they can do, and more, to provide a monetary environment conducive for growth. The fact of the matter is we need fiscal reform and fiscal policy to actually get things working, otherwise it is a wash. There are several measures of unemployment, U-3 is the official one, while some people cite U-6 as it tends to paint a more dismal picture of what is happening.

Plosser has stated that "additional quantitative easing can only help maginally in this economy, and not solve the long term issues" (Cite: Philly fed website)

Make no mistake, every Fed Governor, Fed President, and Ben Bernanke, they all know that the system is unsustainable, but I believe no appropriate action will be taken to fix the system until it is too late.

Post: #10

(12-21-2011 03:53 PM)johnwu Wrote:  Make no mistake, every Fed Governor, Fed President, and Ben Bernanke, they all know that the system is unsustainable, but I believe no appropriate action will be taken to fix the system until it is too late.

In many ways the Fed is tasked with walking a tightrope between keeping the economy strong enough to sustain full employment and a certain level of consumption, but not so strong that inflation kicks in and we get into an out of control wage-price spiral. The good news is that walking a tightrope is pretty easy if you're a trained tightrope walker doing it in normal conditions. And the economists at the Fed are skilled enough to do their jobs in normal times. The bad news is that we do not live in normal times. So, now we're asking the tightrope walker to operate hundreds of feet in the air, in high winds, with no net. That's when shit gets real.

The problem isn't the Fed. The problem is the conditions that we ask the Fed to accommodate. Americans want to consume more than we produce. The only way to do that is with debt. The government didn't bail out the banks as some sort of corrupt payout to their cronies. The government bailed out the banks in order to keep the financial system from collapsing. And they did that because the financial system is how we sell U.S. debt. Without debt, the government cannot finance its budget deficit. You don't need grand conspiracy theories to understand how these things work. It's a matter of self-preservation.

Post: #11

(12-21-2011 04:53 PM)j r Wrote:  

(12-21-2011 03:53 PM)johnwu Wrote:  Make no mistake, every Fed Governor, Fed President, and Ben Bernanke, they all know that the system is unsustainable, but I believe no appropriate action will be taken to fix the system until it is too late.

In many ways the Fed is tasked with walking a tightrope between keeping the economy strong enough to sustain full employment and a certain level of consumption, but not so strong that inflation kicks in and we get into an out of control wage-price spiral. The good news is that walking a tightrope is pretty easy if you're a trained tightrope walker doing it in normal conditions. And the economists at the Fed are skilled enough to do their jobs in normal times. The bad news is that we do not live in normal times. So, now we're asking the tightrope walker to operate hundreds of feet in the air, in high winds, with no net. That's when shit gets real.

The problem isn't the Fed. The problem is the conditions that we ask the Fed to accommodate. Americans want to consume more than we produce. The only way to do that is with debt. The government didn't bail out the banks as some sort of corrupt payout to their cronies. The government bailed out the banks in order to keep the financial system from collapsing. And they did that because the financial system is how we sell U.S. debt. Without debt, the government cannot finance its budget deficit. You don't need grand conspiracy theories to understand how these things work. It's a matter of self-preservation.

It's nice to see somebody has some common sense. +1

Post: #12

I wanted to bump this thread as this is an interesting topic and was curious to hear input from other members, especially since in the U.S. they're starting to increase rates after several years of zero/near zero rates.

Post: #13

Insert buzzwords here: Fractional Reserve Banking, Usury, Debt-based currency.

G

Post: #14

(01-06-2018 02:51 AM)Geomann180 Wrote:  Insert buzzwords here: Fractional Reserve Banking, Usury, Debt-based currency.

G

You forgot the triple brackets.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #15

(12-20-2011 05:21 PM)j r Wrote:  If you want the basics of the Federal Reserve try Wikipedia. If you want to go more in depth, try this book: http://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Temple-Fed...671675567. Word of warning: you're not going to find any deep dark conspiracy theories.

The Federal Reserve isn't "run" by anyone. It's the United States' central bank and it's run by a board of governors, whose members are chosen by the president and confirmed by the senate. Central banks do two things: they conduct monetary policy and they oversee the commercial banking sector. One of the reasons that the Fed is open to so many conspiracy theories is that it exists somewhere in between private organization and government agency. The reason is that if the government had explicit control of the money supply, they'd be forever inflating. People like to complain about the Fed increasing the money supply, but just imagine if congress controlled the printing press.

This is accurate but its like saying Stalin was an effective leader. Its accurate but its far from the whole story.

The real conspiracies are (1) the U.S. government pays interest to the Fed to borrow Federal Reserve Notes when it instead could issue U.S. dollars directly without paying interest, or issue bonds where the interest would be payable to the U.S. Treasury rather than to the Fed, and (2) who owns the Federal Reserve. Kennedy began to unwind this shortly before he was killed. Here is an example of a dollar issued by Kennedy which is not a Federal Reserve Note.



There is a good youtube that explains the evil hidden in plain sight where the government pays private bankers for the privilege of borrowing money into existence: "I want the Earth plus Five Percent."





Interestingly, Lincoln innovated the greenback shortly before he was killed. Andrew Jackson attempted to prevent this evil and they attempted to assasinate him twice but failed.

(2) Who owns the Federal Reserve? The Fed is owned by its member banks. But who owns them? Eustace Mullins in his book, The Federal Reserve Conspiracy, identifies the true owners as mostly castle-dwellers and pointy nose folk in Europe. (G. Edward Griffin largely plagiarized much of Mullin's work in his more popular book, The Creature from Jekyll Island. ) U.S. securities laws require the identification of any 5% holder of a public companies' shares, but they also create a very elaborate mechanism which facilitates nominee or hidden ownership (i.e. you nominate someone to hold shares on your behalf to hide your true ownership a la Depositary Trust Company) so a public company can never know who its owners truly are.

Post: #16

(12-20-2011 10:54 PM)Deluge Wrote:  

(12-20-2011 08:26 PM)UgSlayer Wrote:  

(12-20-2011 05:21 PM)j r Wrote:  If you want the basics of the Federal Reserve try Wikipedia. If you want to go more in depth, try this book: http://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Temple-Fed...671675567. Word of warning: you're not going to find any deep dark conspiracy theories.

The Federal Reserve isn't "run" by anyone. It's the United States' central bank and it's run by a board of governors, whose members are chosen by the president and confirmed by the senate. Central banks do two things: they conduct monetary policy and they oversee the commercial banking sector. One of the reasons that the Fed is open to so many conspiracy theories is that it exists somewhere in between private organization and government agency. The reason is that if the government had explicit control of the money supply, they'd be forever inflating. People like to complain about the Fed increasing the money supply, but just imagine if congress controlled the printing press.

Finally an accurate definition of the Fed. Thank you. It doesn't "print" money. It can increase the quantity of money in circulation by buying back bonds or it can decrease the quantity of money in circulation by selling bonds.

That movie Zeitgeist is filled with lies and people are misquoted. What a piece of shit.

Yup. It buys bonds when it's lowering interest rates. Buying bonds increases the amount of the money in the hands of commercial banks. Higher supply of money according to the laws of supply = a lower cost of credit. Thereby lowering commercial interest rates. The opposite is true when they want to raise interest rates, they sell bonds to banks at a discount instead.

Quote:To answer you question, yes they pretty much have absolute control. They print our money and our government pays them plus interest for it. It is run by some of the wealthiest and most powerful people in the world. They can more or less cause economic booms and depressions whenever they want.

All members of the Federal Reserve are appointed by the Government of the day. The Rockefeller's, Rothschild's and the "Illuminati" have nothing to do with it.

The Federal Reserve tries to prevent booms and busts my adopting counter-cyclical monetary policy. Eg. if the economy is performing strongly they increase interest rates to raise the cost of credit and slow down spending therefore avoiding a boom from occurring. Of course they can fail to do this successful such as before the GFC when their interest rates should have been a lot higher. Right now in the aftermath of the recession they are running an expansionary monetary policy with very very low interest rates to promote consumption spending to try and save the economy and save jobs.

Most countries have central banks just like the Federal Reserve
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_central_banks

It's all really simple stuff, it annoys me when those from the Austrian School of Economics (a non-mainstream school of supply-side economics most advocated famously by Friedrich Hayek) who want to abolish the Federal Reserve spread the myth that it's party of some shadowy New World Order run by the super rich and the Jews for their own benefit.

The main criticism of central banks is that human political interference can fuck with the money supply as happened under the Bush administration, and that central banks cause never ending inflation by creating a fiat currency against nothing of intrinsic value (eg. Gold) which causes never ending inflation. And that expansions and contractions in the money supply cause the booms and busts of the business cycle. Demand side or Keynesian economists (which dominates non-American and non-Republican politics) advocate that the business cycle is inherently unstable when left completely in the hands of the private sector and calls for monetary policy actions by a central bank and budgetary policy from governments to stabilize the business cycle by operating counter-cyclically.

This is fairly balanced take on central banking. I outlined both pro's and cons here. I'm supporter of the central banking system as long as it's monetary policy decisions are not influenced by the ruling government. Thankfully this is true in MOST cases.

I hope this explains the Federal Reserve well. Questions?

You don't really get it, Deluge.

I don't blame you, because the truth is concealed. The two egregious aspects of the Fed that Kosko pointed out above, the fact that the government cannot issue for itself interest-free debt, and that the Fed ownership is private with shareholders from the original Jeckyl Island structure and their descendants getting dividends, those two key items have been occulted from MBA curricula and academia. The original owners are:

Rothschild Bank of London and Berlin
Warburg Bank of Hamburg and Amsterdam
Lehman Brothers of New York
Lazard Brothers of Paris
Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York
Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy
Goldman, Sachs of New York
Chase Manhattan Bank of New York

https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-federa...lies/25080

France used to have a debt-free national central banking system. The country went through a monumental pubic works investment cycle in the 1960s, setting up the groundwork for the world's greatest civil nuclear power system which provided 80% of the country's electricity, the world's greatest rail system (along with Japan's), a top-flight highway system, a very extensive public housing system that eliminated a huge postwar housing crisis, and a potent independent military that included the world's best fighters and bombers (Mirage III and IV).

France managed to do all this initially without incurring any debt, because under president Charles de Gaulle its central bank, the Banque de France, had been able to issue debt-free financing for this massive surge in public spending. De Gaulle was then overthrown by the first modern color revolution in the West, the leftie/youth riots of May 1968. His successor, Georges Pompidou, was a Rothschild minion (just like Macron).

Pompidou appointed a close Rothschild relative/associate, Olivier Wormser, as head of the central bank, and together they've managed to push through a Fed-style law, la Loi Rothschild, in 1973, shortly before Pompidou's death, that law ended public interest-free debt financing. Wormser also had a leading role in setting up the EU and its financial mechanisms. Today most of the central banking in the EU is run out of the BIS in Basel and from the original home of the Rothschilds, Frankfurt.

France had no national debt to speak of before this law, it ballooned afterwards:



The French economy has been shit ever since.

In the US, the debt and inflation picture is remarkably similar. Before 1913, date at which the Fed was set up, the average debt per citizen was $12. There was no inflation in the whole century preceding 1913, it took off shortly afterwards, and really spiked after the US$ went off the gold standard in 1971:




If you want to get a real sense of the history and the mechanisms of the Fed in a short time, here are two great vids, including a live link of Bill Still's The Money Masters which wi30 posted above:










If you want more in-depth research on the subject, those are the two definite works on the subject, you should read:





https://ia600301.us.archive.org/18/items...e227P..pdf

Post: #17

The Jekyll Island book is a good one but its long and the most interesting part is the story of how the Fed was created, which was largely lifted from Eustace Mullins' book. The remainder is a chronicle of public bailouts of private banking failures, which while important are less important to the issue of who owns the Fed and why do we even have it if our Treasury can borrow directly.

Aside from those issues, the Fed is a giant cartel. If a bank deviates from the herd, it gets punished.

Post: #18

But how do you get rid of the Federal Reserve without getting shot in the head?

Post: #19

This is also a good book (it's in the public domain) which in the later chapters, covers the Federal Reserve.

http://library.uniteddiversity.coop/Mone...nt_Day.pdf

Post: #20

(01-06-2018 02:51 AM)Geomann180 Wrote:  Insert buzzwords here: Fractional Reserve Banking, Usury, Debt-based currency.

G

Usury is not a buzzword: it's the system by which the Jews have amassed so much wealth in Europe over the past 1,000+ years. Others tried to copy them, but they are the originals.

Post: #21

(01-07-2018 09:47 PM)Super_Fire Wrote:  

(01-06-2018 02:51 AM)Geomann180 Wrote:  Insert buzzwords here: Fractional Reserve Banking, Usury, Debt-based currency.

G

Usury is not a buzzword: it's the system by which the Jews have amassed so much wealth in Europe over the past 1,000+ years. Others tried to copy them, but they are the originals.

I actually know a lot of the story behind all three words. But not enough to hold my own in an argument. So I settle for getting those words out there.

Calling them buzzwords disarms those who might otherwise dismiss and reject anything related to those words out of hand.

G

Post: #22

Simple: they control how much money is "worth". I write it like that because it really is worth nothing, it is backed by nothing. It is just a piece of paper.

If you want to know how it works imagine a pie. Every time they "print more money", they're not creating any value, so they're just dividing the same pie into smaller and smaller portions. There, that is called inflation.[/align]

Post: #23

(01-07-2018 10:46 PM)Geomann180 Wrote:  

(01-07-2018 09:47 PM)Super_Fire Wrote:  

(01-06-2018 02:51 AM)Geomann180 Wrote:  Insert buzzwords here: Fractional Reserve Banking, Usury, Debt-based currency.

G

Usury is not a buzzword: it's the system by which the Jews have amassed so much wealth in Europe over the past 1,000+ years. Others tried to copy them, but they are the originals.

I actually know a lot of the story behind all three words. But not enough to hold my own in an argument. So I settle for getting those words out there.

Calling them buzzwords disarms those who might otherwise dismiss and reject anything related to those words out of hand.

G

Put simply, usury is a sin in all three major Abrahamic religions. Even Aristotle said that charging interest is like trying to create money out of nothing and was abominable. But, the Jews only considered it a sin to practice usury against other Jews, not the goyim. So you have a group of people who's willing to play this game (see: Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice) in Europe, and you have plenty of goy who are willing to borrow and go into debt.

This is the "anti-semite's" take on this:

Post: #24

Put simply, usury is a sin in all three major Abrahamic religions. Even Aristotle said that charging interest is like trying to create money out of nothing and was abominable. But, the Jews only considered it a sin to practice usury against other Jews, not the goyim. So you have a group of people who's willing to play this game (see: Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice) in Europe, and you have plenty of goy who are willing to borrow and go into debt.
[/quote]

There are a few interesting historical coincidences that you might find interesting. The Jews were expelled from Spain shortly before Columbus departed. They ended up in northern Europe, and this is around the time of the Reformation. It had simmered for over a century - Prague's Old Town Square has a large statue of Jan Hus, the predecessor to Luther. It really gained steam after the Jews were relocated. Also, you'll notice that the Protestant countries generally became more prosperous than the Catholic countries, and had deeper banking interests.

Similarly, the history of the Bank of England, after which the Fed is modeled, is quite interestingly told by Eustace Mullins. Basically William of Orange, in the Netherlands, wanted to take over England. He basically bribed King James' aristocracy with shares of a to be formed bank. Once he took over, they all got shares in the bank. Sort of an early-day leveraged buy-out. William of course was Protestant while James was Catholic.

Post: #25

Exactly; Protestantism was Catholics breaking away so that they could behave more like Jews and practice usury. Similarly, the Anglican Church was formed so Henry VIII could get divorced, and so the robber barons could plunder church property and engage in usury (and then became major victims of it to fund their lavish lifestyles, much to the benefit of the Rothschild family, which eventually owned the Churchills, leading us directly to WWI).

Protestantism and Anglicanism were done out of greed and to ape the Jews, with theological justifications written up after the fact.

Then again, Martin Luther went full 180, from having pity on the Jews and their treatment at the hands of the Catholic Church, to changing his mind the more he tried to convert with them and got to know them, leading up to him going full rage on them and writing "On the Jews and their Lies" in 1543:

https://archive.org/stream/TheJewsAndThe...N_djvu.txt

"Sixthly, that their usury be prohibited, which was
prohibited by Moses, where they are not lords in their
own country over strange lands, and take away all
the currency and silver and gold and put it away for
safe-keeping. For this reason, everything they have
they have stolen from us (as said above) and robbed
through their usury, since they have no other income. "