Abolish the Fed

[Nick Danger]

Did ya notice how Nick skipped right over President Andy Jackson in his little history lesson? I guess he would have had to call ol' Hickory an anit-semitic Marxist for taking on the bankers.

Ordinarily, I would never post a link to a site like this; it's pretty disgusting. But for this you deserve it.

I would like everyone to see the kind of sites where this kookburger stuff originates. It's all there... the history of fiat money, the Rothschilds, the whole nine yards. This, folks, is what is being imported into Free Republic by our Highly Constitutional Patriots who want to tell us all about the banking system.

Warning: Do not click on this link unless you are prepared to be disgusted. I have been warned. Disgust me.

Think that one's a fluke? Think again.

[gjenkins]

"No, today the truth is whatever the people are officially/properly told, not what they see, hear, or think independently."

Naysayers were saying that we have been in (or heading for) a depression months ago. Over tha last two weeks, the officials have finally been saying that we have been in a recession.

[Nick Danger]

Do you try to throw people off the scent of the Federal Reserve System fraud by making those who speak of it out to be kookburgers and promoters of a "jewish banking" conspiracy?

I do not buy the assumption that there is a Federal Reserve System fraud. I think the Fed is a perfectly reasonable solution to a very tough problem. So for months I wondered why we Freepers were constantly being bombarded with these preposterous threads about secret this and hidden that, mixed in with ludicrous gibberish about money and banking. So I started typing phrases from these stories into search engines, to see where the stuff was coming from. Now I know. And now you know, too.

As to whether the people running those sites are kookburgers... I have obviously concluded that they are. But that's my judgement. I suppose other people might view them as patriots who are out fightin' crime. Not me, though. I think they're nuts.

[gjenkins]

depression=recession

[gjenkins]

"So I started typing phrases from these stories into search engines, to see where the stuff was coming from. Now I know. And now you know, too."

I got my skepticism from the writings of the current fed chairman himself. I have never been to these sites. Correlation is not causation.

[gjenkins]

What about when you hear the word 'ditto' or 'feminazi'? I would listen to Mr. Danger more if his opponents were actually using the words bourgeousie, proletariat or even democracy.

[Nick Danger]

just because a person's speech is filled with references to "conservatives" and "liberals" it does not mean that that person is a loyal listener to Rush Limbaugh

Nor would a person who uses the term "Free Republic" necessarily be a freeper. It's when they start using terms like RINO and Clymer and X42 that you begin to wonder.

Opposition to the Federal Reserve, or to a central bank in general, could take many forms. There are many perfectly valid criticisms of the Federal Reserve that one could make. But we don't ever seem to get those around here. Over and over again, we get the same nonsense -- sometimes using exactly the same words -- that can be found on absolutely goofball web sites.

Without too much trouble, you can find multiple threads here on FR in which people claim to be revealing lists of the "secret owners" of the Federal Reserve. They're all slightly different, but they are lists of obviously Jewish-sounding names. Can you honestly say that you believe five people independently decided to investigate the Federal Reserve on behalf of their fellow Freepers, and all of them came up with the idea of listing Jewish bankers as part of their argument? C'mon.

I've noticed that the last few rounds of "Let's Bash The Fed" have been light on the lists of Jews. Perhaps people have figured out that even banking neophytes are going to start smelling rubbish when they encounter that. But the rest of it is still the same. We still get the breathless revelation that the Federal Reserve is not -- I repeat NOT -- a government agency, proven by looking in the phone book no less, when anyone with a web browser can visit the Fed site itself to find that out. We still get tall tales of how the Fed rakes in trillions from financing Treasury debt. How does it happen that the same arguments, complete with the phone books and the "news" that the U.S. Mint prints currency, are developed independently by so many people? How come I can find the same things on the kookburger sites?

Sorry, but we are not witnessing serious independent inquiries into the nature of the Federal Reserve here (although you seem to be one of the few who is actually on a search for the truth). Mostly what we get in these threads is dump trucks full of garbage from anti-Semitic web sites.

[Rodney King]

#231 I challenge you to find where I've ever said anything placing blame on "jewish bankers." However, I will tell you that was a nice try.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you said that, but that the people who push many of these theories do.

[Deuce]

On one level I share your basic pessimism. On the other, I believe reality will ultimately set in. If not, why are we even discussing it? To your specifics:

So you are saying that a good indicator is the stock market and what it does.

I offered this as one possible scenario that COULD lead to a return to reality regarding monetary matters.

It is likely that you are basing this reasoning on the history of the "great depression" stock market crash, but I submit that the situation is different today.

Actually I'm not. The depression was an economic development partially arising from a financial/monetary one. I use the stock market as ONE scenario of a possible return to monetary reality because it is an arena where people are exposed to the unreality, and may act quickly enough to cause a panic/meltdown.

[Deuce]

Opposition to the Federal Reserve, or to a central bank in general, could take many forms.

Hmmn...So you now admit it's a central bank. In past posts, you were denying this with absurd argumentation. For example, when I described how the Fed has the LEGAL AUTHORITY TO INSTANTANEOUSLY save or break any bank from any behavior pattern no matter how bizarre, you countered with the total inanity that an F-16 fighter pilot also has power: he can take out a 747 (failing, apparently, to distinguish between legal authority and power).

Secondly, I'm still waiting for your explanation for why you might favor being taxed to give welfare to Citigroup. You have only stated, so far, you might favor it if the alternative was the collapse of the Fortune 400. I challenged you to describe the scenario in which that could possibly be the alternative, but you have, thus far, failed to do so. (BTW, It doesn't count to say, because Bill Clinton and Robert Rubin implied that might happen if we don't rescue the peso. That would be the kind on non-thinking to which Alien2 refers in Post #280).

Unfortunately, however, your comfort zone seems to be a nauseating repetition of the following ludicrous line of argument (here, only somewhat exaggerated to achieve punctuation):

1. Mr. X likes Scotch Terriers

2. Anti-semitic Marxists liked Cocker Spaniels

3. Since Terriers and Spaniels are both dogs, Mr. X must be an anti-semitic Marxist.

[Nick Danger]

kookburger is a characterization. In order to accurately characterize a person, evidence must be given to support the characterization.

That is fair a request. I've probably slipped up here and there, but I generally try to make it clear that by "kookburgers" I mean the people who author these materials, and who run the web sites where this stuff is promulgated.

I am well aware that somebody who knows little about this subject could stumble over one of the better-disguised (i.e. not named jewwatch.com) web sites and think that they have just discovered the secret truth about how bankers enslave us all. In fact it is precisely because such people exist that the sites were created in the first place. They were put there on purpose, to deceive, and to subtly promote Marxism to people who know very little about economics, and who therefore are unlikely to recognize a collection of Marxist arguments when they hear one.

I don't have a problem with people who fall for that stuff once. There are many clever hoaxes out there, and I've fallen for a couple myself. It's only when somebody insists that this garbage is true, and defends it by spouting jargon-laden gibberish and bringing in "corraboration" from even weirder web sites, that I add them to my list of kookburgers.

As to whether "kookburger" is a fair characterization of the people who promote this stuff... just check out those links above. I think most people would come away thinking that calling them "kookburgers" was being kind.

[Carry_Okie]

So when the American entrepreneur comes calling, hoping to find some money he can borrow to start a pizza business, he can't have any. Nor can anyone else.

Nick, with all due respect for some of your otherwise correct analyses, I don't think you can defend this statement. That entrepreneur can go to the money owner and sell stock. No borrowing, or interest, is necessary in that regard.

[Nick Danger]

I'm still waiting for your explanation for why you might favor being taxed to give welfare to Citigroup. You have only stated, so far, you might favor it if the alternative was the collapse of the Fortune 400. I challenged you to describe the scenario in which that could possibly be the alternative, but you have, thus far, failed to do so.

Because the stock market might crash. That is about as elaborate an explanation as you have provided for why you think The Whole Damned Thing is coming down. So that's all you get until you do better yourself. This game where you provide one-liners while you demand elaborate explanations from everyone else is tiresome.

[Carry_Okie]

I prefer to use the classical definition of money as a clue for what is at issue here: Medium of Exchange, Store of Value, and Unit of Account.

It is clear that a single commodity, gold, has been respected for the ages as a store of value and was easily divisible by weight into the other two functions. There is however, little that is intrinsic about gold that makes it such (in time of war perhaps lead might be a preferable substitute ;-). Given rapid change in technology there has been an enormous accretion of the significance of the substitution effect (and a commensurate convergence of indifference curves). It doesn't take much of a change in an economy to convert a customer from the use of any commodity when the technology to substitute that commodity exists. That renders any individual commodity, including gold, a poor store of value. There is however a problem with using a composite of goods, land, or anything else for that matter, as a store of value: it fails as a trustworthy basis for either a unit of account or a store of value because analysis of that store is so subjective and variable with the demands of business cycles. This perhaps explains why that cyclicality is the enemy of our current monetary system and why that market basket of goods as an indicator of inflation gives so many people the willies (especially with clowns like Beelzebubba cooking the CPI numbers).

Personally, I think that an options market on assets as stores of value for competing, insured, private currencies is a partial answer to the problem. I also think that the current trend to universalize currencies in the name of minimizing the reserve currency function, facilitating trade, and unitizing the ecount of economies is a red herring for an obvious power grab. The current transition to the Euro will amply show itself to be an obviously intentional SNAFU and a theft from the people of Europe. (That little drama should also inure people to returning to putting politicians in charge of their money). Dollarization is a similar scam IMHO. Electronic calculators with wireless connections to currency markets could make both unitized pricing and the reserve currency issues both non-problems.

So for me, the current (and hugely important) issues in money are not at all what is being argued about. There are problems, there is major skull-duggery, and our freedom and economy are at risk to a bunch of unaccountable thugs, but not for the reasons so often bewailed. What do you think?