• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
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....
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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.
 

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
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.
 

AWDstylez

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
2,785
Location
, Connecticut, USA
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.
 

Felid`Maximus

Activist Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
1,714
Location
Reno, Nevada, USA
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.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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.
 

AWDstylez

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
2,785
Location
, Connecticut, USA
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.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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?
 

AWDstylez

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
2,785
Location
, Connecticut, USA
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.
 

xd45_in_TX

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
30
Location
Cypress, Texas, USA
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.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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.
 

AWDstylez

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
2,785
Location
, Connecticut, USA
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.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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.
 

AWDstylez

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
2,785
Location
, Connecticut, USA
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.
 

AWDstylez

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
2,785
Location
, Connecticut, USA
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.
 

Slayer of Paper

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2008
Messages
460
Location
Phoenix, Arizona, USA
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.
 

AWDstylez

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
2,785
Location
, Connecticut, USA
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.
 

AWDstylez

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
2,785
Location
, Connecticut, USA
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?
 
Top