Abolish the Fed

[robnoel]

This may help.....Wayne Hage FYI is now married to Helen Chenowith former member of congress

The revealing story of a rancher  and the national debt

Investigative Documentary By David Morgan, The Asheville Tribune

Case History: Hage v. United States

After years of successfully ranching in California, Wayne & Jean Hage (she is now deceased) purchased a large cattle ranch in Nevada, Pine Creek Ranch, in the spring of 1978. The acreage involved is approximately 752,000 acres. However, as it is mostly desert land, the land's ability to support cattle is far less than might be supposed from its size.

Located in the high desert mountains of central Nevada, the remote operation seemed an unlikely place for a war that would rock the very foundation of federal land management agencies. Wayne purchased the operation from the well-respected Arcularius Brothers who sold the ranch because the regulatory pressure by the U.S. Forest Service had become unbearable. Since Wayne had always been able to work with the agency, he believed he could resolve problems that might occur. Wayne soon learned the only way he could satisfy the Forest Service was to allow them to confiscate his property.

[Rodney King]

Can someone explain to me how the Federal Govt. came to own vast tracts of land which previously belonged to the individual States? As I understand it, they are not supposed to own anything outside of DC other than Military bases, Post Offices, and Federal Buildings. So how did they come to own so much of the Land in this country? And more importantly, why do they need it?

They violated the constitution. Government being what it is, continually seeks to expand its power. It is at the point now where it owns over 70% of the land in some states. It is a terrible threat to private property rights in particular, and freedom in general. I do not see what the connection to monetary policy is.

[TopQuark]

It is a wonderful classification. I would like to ask your opinion, however: once something is written down, such as a list, a contract, a patent, etc. --- does it not become tangible asset? It can be easily sold or otherwise transferred without any disagreement as to the nature or boundaries of the subject.

[TopQuark]

No, goodwill is in the minds of consumers; it is not know-how.

[Rodney King]

It is a wonderful classification. I would like to ask your opinion, however: once something is written down, such as a list, a contract, a patent, etc. --- does it not become tangible asset? It can be easily sold or otherwise transferred without any disagreement as to the nature or boundaries of the subject.

Right. That is my problem with some of the intangible asset definitions. However, in every case there is a time - be it a short one or a long one - that the assets exists in near-certainity, but not in writing and not transferable.

[Torie]

That is an accounting question in part. Some intangible assets are booked for various reasons, and some are not. We know that Microsoft has billions of unbooked assets, because its market value is 10 times greater or something than its book value. Most of that is know-how and trade secrets I suspect (patents are rather ineffectual in that industry), and goodwill not previously purchased and booked. From an economic standpoint, there is no difference between tangible and intangible assets. If the "scope" of the asset is uncertain, because of uncertainty about efficacy or legality, that asset will be discounted for the risk when sold.

[Rodney King]

"Can someone explain to me how the Federal Govt. came to own vast tracts of land which previously belonged to the individual States?"

The very simple answer is that the government issues its own paycheck and that paycheck is made valid through the Federal Reserve System, while at the same time the American people have been legislatively coerced into valuing participation in the Federal Reserve System.

If your very simple answer was that simple, it would be able to explain how the government came to own some of this land before the Federal Reserve System was even conceived. However, since your simple explanation relies upon the Federal Reserve System, it is incapable of explaining on how some of this land was acquired by the US government before the Fed existed.

The very simple answer is really quite simple: The government took our money through taxation and used it to buy these lands. In other cases, it took the land by right of conquest against indians, and never sold it off to citizens as it did some other land.

The problem with that explanation is that it does not require any conspiracies theories, or rambling 3,000 word essays on how we would all be rich if not for the jewish bankers.

[gjenkins]

Question: Nick seems intent on reducing this to marxist kooks vs. capitalism. Isn't the concern really that government backed fractional reserve banking obliterates the concept of capital (it ain't the same as money) and fosters control over ownership (we still own the property although we pay more for the financing and the taxes will out live all of us)?

[TopQuark]

I try to distinguish here between an object and its control: one thing is what a desk is, and how an enterprise accounts for the purchase thereof is yet another. You describe very thoroughly the aspect of accounting control. As you know, the economic value need not coincide with the accounting value. So I am pursuing a similar distinction here.

As a manager, you hire six people and, after a year or so, you make them truly a team. Their “ability to work together” is an intangible asset, which is not on the books at all. Although I, to whom you try to sell your firm, recognize the value, it would not be even clear as to what that animal is --- the “ability to work together.” Consequently, the cost would be hard to estimate and agree upon as well.

In this regard, once an explicit contract (list, patent) is written, to that extent is becomes a tangible asset. In the aforementioned context of the sale of business, there would be little, if any, uncertainty about a patent: both parties themselves (or through courts) can ascertain what it is and negotiate the price.

[TopQuark]

By the way, howz the patent application for your perpetual motion machine going? Howz are we supposed to understand this high-brow remark?

[Torie]

Actually there really is no difference. The issue is what kind of stream of profits the patents and the developed team will generate going forward, discounted to present value, which dicounted present value is inherently uncertain. The market place really draws no distinction. Patents while having some legal effect, can be invented around, etc., or attend a good that becomes obsolescent. The team can break up. Neither are not like a bond.