abolish the Federal Reserve?

[ShoeshineBoy]

Quote from telozo:

Actually banks don't lend you money, but Federal Reserve notes, which people came to think of as money, and it is fine to charge interest on collateralized Federal Reserve notes - let's call them money, but not on money created out of thin air. Anybody can do that - it's risk free profits. Just print some, lend it, and charge interest. So easy.
It's all in here:
http://www.mises.org/Books/mysteryofbanking.pdf

Well, I agree to a point. Banks can essentially create money "out of thin air" which is certainly a scary proposition from square one. Regardless, they do have expenses and if you look at the returns of financial institutions, they are not making exhorbitant profit levels. In fact, look at this chart from Chase JP:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=JPM&t=my

The stock has been flat for almost 10 years. Remember Chase is supposed to be the center of the trilateral universe and their growth has been weak. And, Citibank, another CFR centerpiece, has been flat for the last seven years:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=C&t=my

Wells, interestingly enough, which is much more out of the "Rothschildesque" picture, has done probably the best of the big banks:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=WFC&t=my

Bottom line: banks don't always money hand over fist - it very much depends on the market/economic conditions. And that, in my mind, negates much of the "banks-can-create-money-so-they're-raping-and-pillaging-the-poor-slobs" argument.

Again, increasing the money supply beyond productivity does create a low level wealth-transferring inflation, but it's not an all out rape of the economy as many on this thread seem to suggest.

 

[ShoeshineBoy]

Quote from bid83:

JFK passed executive order 11110 in June of 63. He tried to put the Fed. out of business. He was gone six months later.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach...xecutive+order+11110&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Sorry, but I'd have to see this to believe it. I have seen - with my own eyes - some amazing CFR-related material. But this seems very far-fetched for a variety of reasons.

First of all, why silver? Second of all, why aren't there any references? The best CFR, "one world" researches have good citations. Kennedy could not do something like this without hitting a paper or two. In fact, how could Kennedy implement a silver standard, which is huge financial news, without even one paper knowing or saying anything about it?!?

Finally, why would Kennedy of all people, fight against the Establishment?

I couldn't find an Urban Legend on this, but it just doesn't add up in my mind. If you can find me a legitimate reference, I guess that would be something different.

 

[telozo]

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

Well, I agree to a point. Banks can essentially create money "out of thin air" which is certainly a scary proposition from square one. Regardless, they do have expenses and if you look at the returns of financial institutions, they are not making exhorbitant profit levels. In fact, look at this chart from Chase JP:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=JPM&t=my

The stock has been flat for almost 10 years. Remember Chase is supposed to be the center of the trilateral universe and their growth has been weak. And, Citibank, another CFR centerpiece, has been flat for the last seven years:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=C&t=my

Wells, interestingly enough, which is much more out of the "Rothschildesque" picture, has done probably the best of the big banks:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=WFC&t=my

Bottom line: banks don't always money hand over fist - it very much depends on the market/economic conditions. And that, in my mind, negates much of the "banks-can-create-money-so-they're-raping-and-pillaging-the-poor-slobs" argument.

Again, increasing the money supply beyond productivity does create a low level wealth-transferring inflation, but it's not an all out rape of the economy as many on this thread seem to suggest.

The fact that banks cannot just create any amount of money is very well explained in this excellent book:
http://www.mises.org/Books/mysteryofbanking.pdf
A free banking environment, in which banks can issue money at will, will be, as counterintuitive as it seems, a very healthy one. But unfortunately banks don't like that. They want government intervention and the protection of a central bank. The book explains why a central bank is bad for everyone except banks.

 

[Haroki]

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

Sorry, but I'd have to see this to believe it. I have seen - with my own eyes - some amazing CFR-related material. But this seems very far-fetched for a variety of reasons.

First of all, why silver? Second of all, why aren't there any references? The best CFR, "one world" researches have good citations. Kennedy could not do something like this without hitting a paper or two. In fact, how could Kennedy implement a silver standard, which is huge financial news, without even one paper knowing or saying anything about it?!?

Finally, why would Kennedy of all people, fight against the Establishment?

I couldn't find an Urban Legend on this, but it just doesn't add up in my mind. If you can find me a legitimate reference, I guess that would be something different.

The CTerz are flat off their rocker. They read something (usually from Alex Jones or Ron Paul) and then parrot it back to anyone that they can, without even researching the facts-

http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/flaherty9.html

In summary, E.O. 11,110 did not create new authority to issue additional silver certificates. In fact, its intention was to ease the process for their removal so that small denomination Federal Reserve Notes could replace them in accordance with a law Kennedy himself signed. If Kennedy had really sought to reduce Federal Reserve power, then why did he sign a bill that gave the Fed still more power?

 

[buzzy2]

Quote from Haroki:

The CTerz are flat off their rocker. They read something (usually from Alex Jones or Ron Paul) and then parrot it back to anyone that they can, without even researching the facts-
http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/flaherty9.html

Please show us where and when Ron Paul said or wrote that JFK was killed because he wanted to close the Fed.... never.

 

[buzzy2]

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:
The stock has been flat for almost 10 years. Remember Chase is supposed to be the center of the trilateral universe and their growth has been weak. And, Citibank, another CFR centerpiece, has been flat for the last seven years:

Only a moron could lose money the way they have the cards stacked in their favor.

Now, let's talk about the government and all the trillions in pork programs that are being financed by printing money out of thin air.

 

[Haroki]

Quote from buzzy2:

Please show us where and when Ron Paul said or wrote that JFK was killed because he wanted to close the Fed.... never.

Notice where I said usually? This means, to anyone that understands English, that not always do these wild claims come from RP or AJ...

Actually, I'm surprised that you aren't telling the OP of that JFK nonsense to shut up, cuz those kinds of posts just detract from some of the well thought out posts that many of you have against the Fed.

 

[Hydroblunt]

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:


First of all, why silver?

Because Gold supply can be and has been manipulated by the major players. Silver, on the other hand, is more plentiful and fragmented, hence much harder to manipulate.

Most physical gold supply is hoarded by a few, and the mines are mostly consolidated by major corporations. Silver supply is fragmented, not hoarded and the mines are all over the world

Second of all, why aren't there any references?

Have you ever studied US history? Seriously.

3 presidents prior to JFK have battled the central bankers: Jackson, Garfield & Lincoln. 2 were assasinated successfully, one was not (but the attempt was made).
Why is it that the vast majority of US president assinations have strong ties to central banks.
Does someone need to paint you a picture with crayons?

Finally, why would Kennedy of all people, fight against the Establishment?

I dunno man, maybe the same reason Jackson, Lincoln and Garfield did. Maybe, just maybe, he had a good heart.

You know there are some good folk out in the world. That's why we have not killed each other yet.

 

[ShoeshineBoy]

Quote from Haroki:

The CTerz are flat off their rocker. They read something (usually from Alex Jones or Ron Paul) and then parrot it back to anyone that they can, without even researching the facts-

http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/flaherty9.html

In summary, E.O. 11,110 did not create new authority to issue additional silver certificates. In fact, its intention was to ease the process for their removal so that small denomination Federal Reserve Notes could replace them in accordance with a law Kennedy himself signed. If Kennedy had really sought to reduce Federal Reserve power, then why did he sign a bill that gave the Fed still more power?

Thx for the link.

 

[Hydroblunt]

Quote from Haroki:

The CTerz are flat off their rocker. They read something (usually from Alex Jones or Ron Paul) and then parrot it back to anyone that they can, without even researching the facts-

http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/flaherty9.html

In summary, E.O. 11,110 did not create new authority to issue additional silver certificates. In fact, its intention was to ease the process for their removal so that small denomination Federal Reserve Notes could replace them in accordance with a law Kennedy himself signed. If Kennedy had really sought to reduce Federal Reserve power, then why did he sign a bill that gave the Fed still more power?

You're a moron beyond belief, have you EVER read the actual executive order?

The key was that it changed how the money was being created, instead of debt as money, it was actual currency.