Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 54

Thread: Topic to be deleted soon by nazi collaborators (term 'nazi' used to deliberately agitate)

  1. #1
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069

    Post imported post

    I'm curious.

    Why is it considered brave, patriotic, and courageous to kill an enemy wearing a uniform in a war?

    Any group fighting an unjust and oppresive regieme in power, will obviously be killing uniformed and 'offical' agents of that state. It is the nature of the circumstance.

    Why is the notion so looked down upon here, to the point of censorship?

    It is, after all, how our nation was formed. And justly so. "When in the course of human events..."

    Why is it that whenever I talk about the inevitable end to which all goverments press themselves and their subjects, it is immediately deleted and I am slandered and insulted into oblivion for it?

    I suppose the Jews shouldn't have fought back in Poland either? God forbid, talk about it on an internet forum, had it existed at the time....

    Think long and hard about what you're censoring, and which side of the Constitution and Basic Human Rights you're putting yourself on for doing it.

    Death threat against the state/cops/soldiers? Hello? The Second ammendment is all about puting the government on notice, that we the people WILL shoot back when they cross the line.

    Too easily do the propagandists jump from 'put on notice' to 'death threat' in spite of the lack of any connection. I've not threatened anyone. Just underscored what is already written in the highest law of the nation, exactly as intended.

    I wonder what others think of it? Share with me your agreement or flames....
    "The fourth man's dark, accusing song had scratched our comfort hard and long..."
    http://edhelper.com/poetry/The_Hangm...rice_Ogden.htm

    https://gunthreadadapters.com

    "Be not intimidated ... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your Liberties by any pretense of Politeness, Delicacy, or Decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for Hypocrisy, Chicanery, and Cowardice." - John Adams

    Tyranny with Manners is still Tyranny.

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    You mean besides the fact that JPierce has declared repeatedly that this site is about peaceful change?

    If you have a concern about it, pleasetake it up with him via PM.

    I very much disapprove of calling the foundersof this site Nazi collaborators.

    John and Mike started a nationwide trendtoreclaim a part of an enumerated right. Grass roots. Just two guys.

    Please take a few moments and reflect on whether youchose an apt identifier.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069

    Post imported post

    I'm simply pointing out a slight-of-hand that the moderation staff may not even realize they are doing.

    Where would any free nation be, if it's people refused to take up arms against those oppressive agents in uniform? That is the very basis of what the 2A is. How can discussion of it be forbidden?

    The trick is the same as that played by the immature gun-haters. They imply a threat by the mere existance of a weapon, and impose false and derogatory inuendo about the owner's character. We've all experienced it.

    Nowhere, ever, have I made a death threat. It is the same immature jumping to false conclusions followed by inuendo and insult. The 2A is, in it's absolute substance, a threat to government. Obey, or We the People will put you back in your place; kill you if you refuse.

    What man calls himself a patriot and champion of any right, who would censor the very topic of it?

    Is Nazi too strong a word? I'm sure collaborating with the Nazi's seemed reasonable and prudent before they invaded Poland. Some nations still felt that way even after... My point is, it all seems benign until it's too late. The issue IS that important, if you realize it or not. Making a molehill out of a mountain is dangerous.

    I have no problem with doing my part 'when, in the course of human events, it become necessary...' And I won't whisper it quietly, either. Were it my place and time, it would be my name written the largest, not John's.

    But to call that a death threat against cops/soldiers/gov't in general, is an absolute lie. And a very dangerous one at that. I couldn't care less if you choose to insult me for it. That's far from the point.
    "The fourth man's dark, accusing song had scratched our comfort hard and long..."
    http://edhelper.com/poetry/The_Hangm...rice_Ogden.htm

    https://gunthreadadapters.com

    "Be not intimidated ... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your Liberties by any pretense of Politeness, Delicacy, or Decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for Hypocrisy, Chicanery, and Cowardice." - John Adams

    Tyranny with Manners is still Tyranny.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    ixtow wrote:
    I wonder what others think of it? Share with me your agreement or flames....

    We're a long ways off from needing what will be a very bloody revolution. Peaceful means still exist. The government isn't the root of the problem, the people are the problem because the people are the government. As I commented on in another thread, as long as the idiots in this country keep voting idiots into office, we'll get no where. When people in this country wake up and start giving a @#$%, then we'll get somewhere. Over throwing the government isn't going to accomplish jack @#$% because we'll still be left with the same group of idiots for a populace.

    Bottom line? The revolution comments are uncalled for and out-there on many levels. I see no problem with them being censored because extremists like you make us all look bad.

    Fix the people and you fix the government. This isn't a dictatorship. Politicians still need votes to come to power.


  5. #5
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713

    Post imported post

    Well this site isn't about overthrowing corrupt regimes by force. It is about open carry and peacefully using the legal process to improve our right to do so. Off-topic discussion can be a distraction from the main point of the site, and I think the mods could be very justified in censoring such information, especially if it is just going to lead to off topic name calling and bickering.

    There are plenty of forums dedicated out there to practically every topic. If discussion of all topics was allowed on all forums, it would defeat the point of a specialized forum that centers around a particular topic.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    ixtow wrote:
    I wonder what others think of it? Share with me your agreement or flames....
    We're a long ways off from needing what will be a very bloody revolution. Peaceful means still exist. The government isn't the root of the problem, the people are the problem because the people are the government. As I commented on in another thread, as long as the idiots in this country keep voting idiots into office, we'll get no where. When people in this country wake up and start giving a @#$%, then we'll get somewhere. Over throwing the government isn't going to accomplish jack @#$% because we'll still be left with the same group of idiots for a populace.

    Bottom line? The revolution comments are uncalled for and out-there on many levels. I see no problem with them being censored because extremists like you make us all look bad.

    Fix the people and you fix the government. This isn't a dictatorship. Politicians still need votes to come to power.
    Of course, there is still the whole Knab Evreser Laredef (read it backwards) thing. Creating money from debt and all that.

    As long as debt is needed to create money, the economy, and thus thecountry,is in the hands of the banksters (play on bankers and gangsters).

    Wanta guess why government has no real interest in kicking out illegal immigrants? I'm betting that as long asillegals send money home, more money has to be created here. How? By "selling" more debt.More debt = more cashola for banksters (interest payments and all that.) Stop selling debt and the economy shudders.Then the government is in real trouble.

    Wantaguess why Congress has no real interest in controlling spending? Its not just buying votes. I'm betting they almost have to keepup the spending so more debt is created and money is created just to keep the economy operating.While theyprobably spend more thanthey need to even under a debt-money-creation scheme, they have no real incentive to cut back as long asthe system runs onmoney-must-be-created-from-debt.

    Wanta guess why the gazillion dollar bailouts are so readily being approved? They create debt. They create money.

    I know the system is much more complicated than I'm relating here, but the simple fact is theBankThatShallNotBeNamed creates money by selling debt. Everything else derives from there.

    He who creates the money controls the game. There is quite a history to this. You'll be stunned todiscover when yougo looking.Iwas. Still am.

    Start by Googling Ron Paul questioningBernankeduring a hearing. There is a video(CSPAN?) on the internet. Listen toBernanke's carefully evasive answer. Then dig in on the research. We're not talking tin-foil hat sources here, either.

    So, the problem is much deeper thanidiots electing the same people over and over. Isuspect the govern-ers are caught between a rock and a hard place. Of course, they wantthe perks and power; but I suspect they can't letgo the reins either anymore. Not as long as it would upset the debt-to-money machine and cause huge turbulence.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    AWDstylez wrote:
    ixtow wrote:
    I wonder what others think of it? Share with me your agreement or flames....
    We're a long ways off from needing what will be a very bloody revolution. Peaceful means still exist. The government isn't the root of the problem, the people are the problem because the people are the government. As I commented on in another thread, as long as the idiots in this country keep voting idiots into office, we'll get no where. When people in this country wake up and start giving a @#$%, then we'll get somewhere. Over throwing the government isn't going to accomplish jack @#$% because we'll still be left with the same group of idiots for a populace.

    Bottom line? The revolution comments are uncalled for and out-there on many levels. I see no problem with them being censored because extremists like you make us all look bad.

    Fix the people and you fix the government. This isn't a dictatorship. Politicians still need votes to come to power.
    Of course, there is still the whole Knab Evreser Laredef (read it backwards) thing. Creating money from debt and all that.

    As long as debt is needed to create money, the economy, and thus thecountry,is in the hands of the banksters (play on bankers and gangsters).

    Wanta guess why government has no real interest in kicking out illegal immigrants? I'm betting that as long asillegals send money home, more money has to be created here. How? By "selling" more debt.More debt = more cashola for banksters (interest payments and all that.) Stop selling debt and the economy shudders.Then the government is in real trouble.

    Wantaguess why Congress has no real interest in controlling spending? Its not just buying votes. I'm betting they almost have to keepup the spending so more debt is created and money is created just to keep the economy operating.While theyprobably spend more thanthey need to even under a debt-money-creation scheme, they have no real incentive to cut back as long asthe system runs onmoney-must-be-created-from-debt.

    Wanta guess why the gazillion dollar bailouts are so readily being approved? They create debt. They create money.

    I know the system is much more complicated than I'm relating here, but the simple fact is theBankThatShallNotBeNamed creates money by selling debt. Everything else derives from there.

    He who creates the money controls the game. There is quite a history to this. You'll be stunned todiscover when yougo looking.Iwas. Still am.

    Start by Googling Ron Paul questioningBernankeduring a hearing. There is a video (CSPAN?) on the internet. Listen toBernanke's carefully evasive answer. Then dig in on the research. We're not talking tin-foil hat sources here, either.

    So, the problem is much deeper thanidiots electing the same people over and over. Isuspect the govern-ers are caught between a rock and a hard place. Of course, they wantthe perks and power; but I suspect they can't letgo the reins either anymore. Not as long as it would upset the debt-to-money machine and cause huge turbulence.




    That whole case is a tough one to buy when we're currently in a stagflation state, teetering on deflation, even with all the spending and money creation.

    Fractional reserve banking is legitimate, most people just don't understand it so the conspiracy theories start. Please do some research on how the system actually works before jumping head-first onto that "zomg the FED is taking over the worldz!!!" conspiracy train.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    SNIP Fractional reserve banking is legitimate, most people just don't understand it so the conspiracy theories start. Please do some research on how the system actually works before jumping head-first onto that "zomg the FED is taking over the worldz!!!" conspiracy train.
    Fractional reserve banking isn't the issue.

    Fractional reserve banking started centuries ago with gold as the basis for the money.

    I'm talking about debt as the basis forthe money--money issuedas figures inan account--electronic or paper record.Money created out of nothing. Fiatmoney.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    SNIP That whole case is a tough one to buy when we're currently in a stagflation state, teetering on deflation, even with all the spending and money creation.
    How so?

    FannieFreddie issued tons of bad loans. Where'd they get the money to make those loans? Ultimately, even if there were intermediaries, it came from where? Who was willingly cranking out that so-called money, fiat money?
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    AWDstylez wrote:
    SNIP Fractional reserve banking is legitimate, most people just don't understand it so the conspiracy theories start. Please do some research on how the system actually works before jumping head-first onto that "zomg the FED is taking over the worldz!!!" conspiracy train.
    Fractional reserve banking isn't the issue.

    Fractional reserve banking started centuries ago with gold as the basis for the money.

    I'm talking about debt as the basis forthe money--money issuedas figures inan account--electronic or paper record.Money created out of nothing. Fiatmoney.
    Fractional reserve banking is money out of nothing.

    You put $1,000 in the bank. The bank holds on to $100 of that, then turns around and loans out the other $900. There is now $1,900 in circulation. That's money out of nothing.


    Again, please research. We havea credit based economy. The days of functioning on a gold standard are long over and that isn't necessarily a bad thing, nor does it mean the FED is trying to take over the world.

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Cypress, Texas, USA
    Posts
    30

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    AWDstylez wrote:
    SNIP That whole case is a tough one to buy when we're currently in a stagflation state, teetering on deflation, even with all the spending and money creation.
    How so?

    FannieFreddie issued tons of bad loans. Where'd they get the money to make those loans? Ultimately, even if there were intermediaries, it came from where? Who was willingly cranking out that so-called money, fiat money?
    http://www.fanniemae.com/aboutfm/index.jhtml
    Fannie Mae is a government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) chartered by Congress with a mission to provide liquidity and stability to the U.S. housing and mortgage markets.

    Fannie Mae operates in the U.S. secondary mortgage market. Rather than making home loans directly with consumers, we work with mortgage bankers, brokers, and other primary mortgage market partners to help ensure they have funds to lend to home buyers at affordable rates. We fund our mortgage investments primarily by issuing debt securities in the domestic and international capital markets.


    Click on the link above to read the rest of their story.

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    SNIP Fractional reserve banking is money out of nothing.

    You put $1,000 in the bank. The bank holds on to $100 of that, then turns around and loans out the other $900. There is now $1,900 in circulation. That's money out of nothing.

    Again, please research. We havea credit based economy. The days of functioning on a gold standard are long over and that isn't necessarily a bad thing, nor does it mean the FED is trying to take over the world.
    Thanks for clarifying about fractional reserve banking. I had missed the connection, and have now added it to my complaint. By the way, I think you left something out of your explanation.

    Lets re-write the bold-red to what it really means: "We have a debt based economy." No sense whitewashing it. People must go into debt in order to have money to operate our economy under the current system. Its not that its nice to have a banking system. Its not that its in some ways beneficial to have a banking system. Its that people must go into debt.

    I have been researching. I initially stumbled across this reading up on the Framing-era, Alexander Hamilton, and all his sheninagins getting the government almost inextricably under the control of banker-types. Then I came across Thomas Jefferson's comment about how bankers had the government hog-tied. Then Andrew Jackson's vow (kept) to unsaddle the young country from the bank.

    I admit I'm no whiz-bang at finance and that I'm still new to the subject, but I have yet to come across anything--anything--that demonstrates conclusively that the current system is good, beneficial, workable, sustainable, etc. except simple declarations that it is, without examples for me to evaluate for myself. Basically someone, not too unlike yourself, saying that it isn't necessarily bad we went off the gold standard, without explaining how it was good, why it was good, that it happened for good reasons, and because of sound, responsible fiscal planning based on sound, responsiblemonetary policy.

    On the other hand, I've come across more than one, Ron Paul in particular, who explicitly says the central bank creates inflation which acts as a tax on my savings. Hmmmm. That's a nice way of putting it. A hostile way of putting it would be to call it capitalized socialism. Somebody somewhere deliberately devalues my savings--theft--taking a benefit to themselves for the increase in value they obtain by their mechanism. And they spread this newly transferred value to others via loan channels--your fractional banking. Its just that's it not quite socialism because the borrower has to pay interest.

    Not long after reading about Hamilton's exploits I heard on the radio about some interest rate from (the central bank?) on overnite loans. Later I heard about an interest rate in the high finance world calculated to four decimal places. It dawned on me that ifthe financial industryhastime and creativity to figure out a new way tomake money by making an overnite loan and a reason to calculate interest rates to four decimal places, they also have the means and creativityto deliberately create and manage inflation to make a buck for themselves. I don't have evidence that it is being done, no smoking-gun memo or diary entry, but I would be very surprised to find out it wasn't true. It fits too well what we know of people and thedesire for money. Maybe I'm overlooking steps and complications in the sytem or how its arranged, but I'm betting I'm not far off.

    So, yes. I will keep looking. Follow the money, as the saying goes.

    By the way, you'll get further with me if you don't invent an argument I didn't make in order to take issue with something I didn't say. Inever said thecentral bank was trying to take over the world.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    Lets re-write the bold-red to what it really means: "We have a debt based economy." No sense whitewashing it. People must go into debt in order to have money to operate our economy under the current system. Its not that its nice to have a banking system. Its not that its in some ways beneficial to have a banking system. Its that people must go into debt.


    I admit I'm no whiz-bang at finance and that I'm still new to the subject, but I have yet to come across anything--anything--that demonstrates conclusively that the current system is good, beneficial, workable, sustainable, etc. except simple declarations that it is, without examples for me to evaluate for myself. Basically someone, not too unlike yourself, saying that it isn't necessarily bad we went off the gold standard, without explaining how it was good, why it was good, that it happened for good reasons, and because of sound, responsible fiscal planning based on sound, responsiblemonetary policy.

    If you don't mind me asking, what do you do for work?

    It's hard to explain finance from the ground up, especially when I suck at explaining anything, which is really the understanding you need, but you canstart by looking at the company you work for.

    A business cannot operate on cash alone because in order to expand (and in most cases just to get going) requires large amounts of capital. That capital investment will LATERcreate cash flow, but inorder to get that cash flow money hasto be put up and that money has to come from somewhere. That somewhere is debt. Debt to investors, bond holders, banks, etc. Where do banks get the money? From the FED.

    Let my grossly, grossly oversimplify to address your main question. If we had a gold standard or any fixed amount of money, there can be no growth. We're limited to the amount of money in the system and that money can only be moved around, nothing can be added to it. Foreign investors can add money into our country's economy, but they too have a fixed amount of money in their economy. That means when your employer has a project they want to undertake, theworkingcapitalhas to come out of the fixed money pool. This lowers the amount of available money in the pool. Before you know it, we're fresh out of money for new ventures and expansion, and theeconomy is as far as it's going to advance.

    In our current system, we have a variable amount of money in the pool based on need and availability (the FED's target rate). The money supply can grow with the economy. When your employer wants to undertake that project, they can go to the bank and the bank can loan them money which the bank itself borrowed from the FED. The amount of money in the system is kept in check by the FED'srate. Raise the rate andpeople think twice about whether that money is worth borrowing. Lower the rateand the money is almostfree (like now). But the bottom line is, the money supply is able to grow with the economy and facilitate moregrowth.



    If you work for a publicly traded company you should easily be able to get your hands on a yearly report. Just browse through it and it'll answer a lot of your questions about by we need a "debt based" system.



  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    Citizen wrote:
    SNIP Lets re-write the bold-red to what it really means: "We have a debt based economy."
    SNIP [fixed amount of money =no growth]
    Thank you for the info. Helps to see more of the picture.

    Whowrote that its necessary to have a debt based system, that is to say, there are no other solutions?

    Who says growth can't occur? And what makes it impossible to solve?

    I'm not arguing with you, I'm looking for the source of these ideas. Or, are they agreements that just sprang up because "that's the way it seems to be?"

    You see, when theeconomy and cultureare on the table, I'm not going to blindly accept "everybody knows".

    Something is wrong. It just blew the f$%@ up in our faces. The very people who helped crew the ship are now proposing to "fix" things. Congress, the central bank, and the financial sector screwed it up. I'm not aboutto believe for one moment that they know what they're doing when it comesto "fixing" it.

    I'm looking at a severe drop in income, possibly unemployment. If the huge additions ofmoney drive up inflation, even more of my savings are disappearing.

    I'm pissed. I'm in full suspicion mode.And I'm accepting no answers or explanations that don't make 100% sense,line upcompletely with all the other answers and explanations,and pass the smell test.


    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    Something is wrong. It just blew the f$%@ up in our faces. The very people who helped crew the ship are now proposing to "fix" things. Congress, the central bank, and the financial sector screwed it up. I'm not aboutto believe for one moment that they know what they're doing when it comesto "fixing" it.

    I'm looking at a severe drop in income, possibly unemployment. If the huge additions ofmoney drive up inflation, even more of my savings are disappearing.

    I'm pissed. I'm in full suspicion mode.And I'm accepting no answers or explanations that don't make 100% sense,line upcompletely with all the other answers and explanations,and pass the smell test.


    Honestly, I can admit thatdon't have many answers for you. The entire world is still sorting out the causes of this crisis and it isn't as simple as government and FNM/FRE. The root causeeveryone overlooks is that we were simply due for a recession/depression. The market makes bubbles and the bubbles pop. It's a fact of economics. This time around we had a whole host of things compounding the issue. But the main issue is that the bubble popped. When it popped it exposed a whole lot of weaknesses in the system, stuff that's been there for a long time, but it took an economic downturn to expose it. It started with housing. Sub-prime became an issue because housing prices started declining. Why did housing start declining? Because we were due for it. When you build, build, build like mad people, you run up supply... eventually you're going to run out of buyers. Growth doesn't go on forever. Youcan't make loans assumingthevalue ofcollateralwill increase for all eternity. A bubble formed, the bubble popped. So housing prices fell and exposed the sub-prime issues, which exposed bad loan practice, which exposed bad accounting practice, etc etc etc and here we are.

    Don't always be so quick to blame government for recessions and depressions. They're natural economic cycles that will occur no matter what party is in power or what stupid or great policy they pass. The government generally has very little effect on economic swings, for better or worse.

    As for the current money dump and "bailout" madness... no one knows what's going to happen. This has never been done before.


  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    Whowrote that its necessary to have a debt based system, that is to say, there are no other solutions?

    I honestly haven't looked into other solutions or schools of thought, nor are we taught any (so far).



    The reason the current system is "debt based" is simple. The FED needs to control the money supply somehow. If the FED gave out the money with no interest, banks would borrow and loan out near infinite amounts of money because the money is essentially free.That's why the FED varies the interest rate. Want to slow inflation? Increase the interest rate and people stop borrowing, thus the supply of newmoney dries up. Not enough money in the system (like now), lower the rate to encourage borrowing, which makes more money.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    460

    Post imported post

    The root cause everyone overlooks is that we were simply due for a recession/depression. The market makes bubbles and the bubbles pop. It's a fact of economics.
    The basic fallacy here is that there MUST be periods of boom, followed by periods of bust, in a never-ending cycle. That there MUST be inflation. You say that it is a fact of economics, but that is not true. It is a fact of fractional banking system economics.

    You talked about how a gold-based system is a closed system, and growth is not possible. What you are talking about is how the fractional banking system, through creating new money, can actually grow the economy. What you are missing is that money isn't capital. Capital is those things that have real, intrinsic value: basically, the total amount of goods and services. Those things that people want and need. The amount of capital is FIXED (or changes at a very slow rate, just as precious metals based money does). If you introduce new money into a system with essentially fixed amount of capital, all you are doing is making all of the money in the system worth less. Hence, inflation.

    Here is the real insidious part of the inflationary system: The inflationary effect of introducing new money into the system doesn't happen right away, or with any regularity. Those that get the new money first get to use it before any inflation from its introduction has occurred. For those that receive it then spend it, it is worth a little less, and then a little less. As the new money works its way into the system, the cost of capital rises. One f the last things to increase in price is the salaries and wages of employed people, particularly on the lower ends. By the time they receive the new money, it has been fully integrated into the system, and is as devalued as it is going to get.

    Make no mistake: inflation is a tax. Worse, it is a tax that hits the poorest people in society hardest.

    Dr. Ron Paul explains these principles pretty well in Revolution.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    Slayer of Paper wrote:
    The root cause everyone overlooks is that we were simply due for a recession/depression. The market makes bubbles and the bubbles pop. It's a fact of economics.
    The basic fallacy here is that there MUST be periods of boom, followed by periods of bust, in a never-ending cycle. That there MUST be inflation. You say that it is a fact of economics, but that is not true. It is a fact of fractional banking system economics.

    Prove it. It's a fact of the free market and supply/demand. It happens everywhere on every level and in every time period. You can even watch a 10 minute daily of the DOW and you'll see swings regardless of what direction it's ultimately moving in. The market/economy is always seeking equilibrium and that causes correctional swings. Fractional banking has nothing to do with it.

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Here isPeter Schiff, President of Euro Pacific Capitalpredicting the current collapse 2-3 years ago and being laughed at by other financial experts.

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b0a_1232747931

    Mindhis early language: "too much consumption, too much debt and not enough production and savings."
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    Here isPeter Schiff, President of Euro Pacific Capitalpredicting the current collapse 2-3 years ago and being laughed at by other financial experts.

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b0a_1232747931

    Mindhis early language: "too much consumption, too much debt and not enough production and savings."


    Sounds like a product of greed. What does fractional reserve banking or the FED have to do with any of those listed items?

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    Citizen wrote:
    Here isPeter Schiff, President of Euro Pacific Capitalpredicting the current collapse 2-3 years ago and being laughed at by other financial experts.

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b0a_1232747931

    Mindhis early language: "too much consumption, too much debt and not enough production and savings."
    Sounds like a product of greed. What does fractional reserve banking or the FED have to do with any of those listed items?
    Monetization of debt (turning debt into fiat money) isone of Fed's main mechanisms.

    By too much debt, he wasn't necessarily talking about consumer debt, he was talking also about governmentdebt.

    Incurring debt is much, much less risky for the government than raising taxes to finance government spending.

    If the government borrows money, and thereby creates inflation, the effects on theelectorate are distributed unevenly in the economy,don't show up for months or longer, and then it just looks like inflation. Whereas direct tax increasesrisk getting thegovern-ersunelected by unhappy voters.

    For anybody following the exchange betweenAWDstylez and I, if you are interested, there is a wealth of information available on-line about our monetary system. Let me re-phrase, YOU WANT TO KNOW THIS STUFF. Most of what I've found is easy to grasp. I've had to resort to an on-linedictionary only a couple times.

    Bottom line so far from what I'm finding is that despite all the sophistication and complication in our money system, its the banking system that controls the country. The real power lies with the banking system.

    This isn't as direct and isn't necessarily as conspiratorial as it sounds on the face of that last sentence. The banking system and government have a sort of alliance or partnership.

    Dig in on this guys. The Fed and its affects on us are huge. Check your wallet. Got some Federal Reserve Notes in there? Nobody is immune, except maybe the bankers themselves. The Brady Campaign and the gun grabbers are just a cultural sideshow compared the problems caused by our money system, which is to say, caused by the Fed.

    Just type Federal Reserve into google.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    Monetization of debt (turning debt into fiat money) isone of Fed's main mechanisms.

    By too much debt, he wasn't necessarily talking about consumer debt, he was talking also about governmentdebt.

    Incurring debt is much, much less risky for the government than raising taxes to finance government spending.

    He was most definitely talking about consumer debt, because that's one of the reasons we are where we are. But I'll throw you a bone here and say he wasn't.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/f...get/chambf.htm



    It's a long read, but this is part that matters (for the lazy people that don't like to read)...
    But government expenditures could not be expected to rise by a similar amount, in part because many of its needs (notably defense) do not automatically expand just because national income has gone up, and in part because philosophically we still tend to limit the role of government--the things for which it can spend its revenues. Thus if the nation were to operate at its potential, the government would run a substantial budget surplus--a "full employment surplus."


    And, contrary to our old beliefs, that would not be good but harmful. It would mean that the government would be taking money out of the spending stream so that operations at the potential GNP couldn't be sustained--unless, indeed, the private sector was spending an equivalent amount in excess of its own receipts. The surplus could be used to retire debt, but that would, for the most part, simply extinguish bank loans and put nothing in their place.


    In short, the full-employment surplus measures the amount of "fiscal drag" on the economy. It reveals by how much the government's budget is deterring the economy from reaching or maintaining its desired level of performance.


    The only point at which the government budget should be in balance is when the nation is operating at its full potential. The only point at which it should seek a surplus is when the economy is attempting to produce more than its potential, generating inflationary pressures. But more than this is implied. Even if the government is running a deficit, it may not be running enough of a deficit to give the stimulus that will carry the economy to its potential. This would be true if, with rising GNP, the federal goverment's budget would come into balance before the potential was realized. It would then be taking in more money than it was spending, thereby acting as a brake on economic activity before its destination was reached
    Basically, the government is not a business. It doesn't opertate like a business. It doesn't effect the economy in the same way as a business. A balanced budget, while good for a business,is NOT necessarily a good thing for the government. Granted, it all needs to be done within reason (the calculations), Bush isa prime example of blowing the deficit to the moon, but the bottom line remains the same... a balanced budget is not necessarily a good thing.

    Balance the budget? Of course, but what budget? The answer which is now being given is the full-employment budget. At levels short of full employment this means balancing not an actual but a hypothetical budget, the budget as it would be if we were operating at potential GNP. This is not a matter of running in the red in a vague hope that this will do the economy some good, as the bloodletting of earlier days was expected to restore a patient's health. It is the incurring of deficits in an amount which is guided by calculations of potential GNP, which in turn is based on computations of the level of acceptable compromise between unemployment and price increases.


    You also have to realize (and this is covered in the article) that government debt is not like private debt. The vast majority of the national is debt isn't owned to anyone but ourselves. One more reason that the guy in your previous link was refering to private debt.

  23. #23
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    SNIP You also have to realize...
    Oh, stop going in circles already.

    The post that started this little flurry was not intended to do other than show the current problem was predicted with the predictor laughed at, and that debt plays into it as well as the other factors mentioned.

    I've noticed you've gone to a lot of trouble to avoid any criticism of fractional reserve banking, the mechanisms of the Fed, and inflation/drop in value of the monetary unit. Just support. No mention of the liabilities or problems. No recognition.

    Your one-sided stance is becoming suspicious.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    I've noticed you've gone to a lot of trouble to avoid any criticism of fractional reserve banking, the mechanisms of the Fed, and inflation/drop in value of the monetary unit. Just support. No mention of the liabilities or problems. No recognition.

    Your one-sided stance is becoming suspicious.


    It's one of things, like firearms restrictions, where there's so many people here that are already against it, it makes my stance look one-sided. Why do you need to present both sides of an issue when I have an entire forum full of people presenting the other side and only myself presenting the counter side?

    In this case of the FED and our banking system, I already know most people reading this are strongly against it (more than likely for false-basis reasons) so I'm simply trying to debunk some myths. I never said the FED was the greatest organization in the world, I just said they weren't trying to take over the world. Go ahead and hate the FED, but do it for legitimate reasons, not conspiracy theories and falses beliefs.

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    We're a long ways off from needing what will be a very bloody revolution.* Peaceful means still exist.* The government isn't the root of the problem, the people are the problem because the people are the government.
    I know you love this rhetoric, and it's not untrue. However, even if the people "are" the government in a philosophical/theoretical sense, the government certainly "is" not the people. (This is evidenced by the variety of ways in which government and its agents set themselves "apart" from society in general).

    At any rate, I would merely point out that "the people" have to change themselves, which is a problem of a greater scope than merely changing the government directly. For one thing, action directed towards government itself rather than towards the people relies less on others' lack of apathy.

    Obviously, I wish the human race could do better for itself, but for now I don't deny the reality that many people are discontent and the surest, most direct path to the change they desire is not through working to change society itself (as ideal -- or idealistic -- a solution as that would be) but by actively effecting the change on government itself. Admittedly, this has only shown to be a temporary solution at best, and there is potential for disastrous results.

    I'm not sure I agree myself that we're on the cusp of a revolution (just yet), but I'm also not going to use philosophical rhetoric to convince myself that the clowns running Washington truly represent, are truly responsive to, or are in any way composed "of" "the people" in anything but a definitionally true sense.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •