Posted on 12/01/2001 9:02:46 PM PST by floridarocks
Can someone please explain why we should not abolish the Federal Reserve or explain why lawyers won't discuss the bankruptcy of the corporate US in 1933 the keeps us perpetually indebted to the international bankers. How rich are those Rothschilds anyway? Is there such a thing as kazillion?
I have these books. They are bound in rivets. It'd be impossible to add or remove pages without destroying the book(s)
Its amazing what one can purchase at yard sales for practically nothing. I have 3 volumes of a 8 volume set.
"A Federal reserve bank is specifically empowered by the act to receive from any of its member banks deposits of current funds in lawful money , national bank notes , Federal reserve notes or checks..."
volume 4, page 139-140
although the Federal reserve banks cannot of course, draw in any of their notes that are outstanding with the public, they can technically retire such notes by depositing with the Federal reserve agent gold or lawful money to the full amount of the outstanding notes."
"...all liability for the notes has been wiped out by the deposit of money Volume 4, page 145
The Federal reserve is a private for profit corporation.
No, the only way to get outta this mess is to return to the original document that spelled it all out, the Constitution for the United States.
See also Article 1, sec 8, clause 5
In this case, technology has changed the value of gold and silver to that of any another mineral commodity whose value varies with market demand. In fact, without the demand for gold as a raw material for manufacturing electronics it would look even worse as a store of value than it already does.
In 1913, lawful money was gold. But when FDR confiscated the people's gold in 1933, it became meaningless. Nonetheless, people too "unsophisticated" to understand the wonderment of fiat did, from time to time, present the notes for redemption. When someone sought to redeem a 10 after 1933, he would be given 2 5's. In 1963, they just removed PAY TO THE BEARER ON DEMAND, completely. Nowadays, a so-called $10 bill says to the bearer, I owe somebody 10 nothing which I may or may not pay now or in the future. Thank god for that bigger fool theory.
That's irrelevant? The point is what stands behind the so-called dollar. Anything can serve as the backing as long as it has value. Nonetheless, gold is best, by far, for the reasons stated below, among others.
In fact, without the demand for gold as a raw material...it would look even worse as a store of value than it already does.
There is currently 50 years supply of gold above ground (mostly in the form of unused gold bars). Therefore, the demand for gold, is hardly affected by demand for current industrial usage. About 30% of all the gold that has ever been mined, exists in the form of bars sitting in vaults. What other commodity has even a one year supply in existence.
How do you explain this:
Customer: I'd like to buy an ounce of gold. How much will that be?
Merchant: That will be $275
Customer: I'm sorry, did I say an ounce? I meant a ton. How much will that cost me?
Merchant: $275/ounce.
Name another product for which that is true (besides money)
I think you misunderstand my reasoning. All I'm suggesting is that when we discuss these subjects, we use somewhat reasonable arguments and at least a token reliance on fact to support them.
It is not a good thing, when discussing the Federal Reserve System, to introduce falsehoods concerning the nature of the institution and its ownership structure. Nor should people knowingly tell lies about what happens to its earnings. Nobody needs to drag in a list of mysterious people with Jewish-sounding names to discuss this subject, and we really don't need to take a detour into Marxism. Demonizing cartoon bankers as financial elites is a useful rhetorical device, I suppose, but it does not add any light to the discussion; it's mostly noise.
Carrie Okie is here advocating private currencies. He has used none of these devices to make his points. He stays with the economic and political fundamentals. This thread would have been a whole lot better if everyone had done that. Not one of these discussions about the Fed -- and we've had many -- has been improved by the addition of stuff from wacko sites about Rothschilds and class struggle and a rapacious Federal Reserve that sends its windfall profits off to the foreign bankers who secretly Control Zee Vorld. Adding that stuff is not discussing; it's hijacking a thread to sell an agenda.
Top Ten Ways to Tell You Are On a Wacko Site
10. They refer to the Bush Administration as the "regime."
9. They tell you that the Earth will be better off without humans.
8. They tell you that everything that happens is known in advance.
7. They tell you that everything that happens is known in advance by the Pope and the Queen of England.
6. They tell you that there are people who are so smart that they can organize thousands of people over periods of centuries to achieve specific aims.
5. They tell you it's all part of a Giant Plan.
4. They tell you that rich people will get richer when everyone else is a slave.
3. They tell you the Catholics did it.
2. They tell you the Jews did it.
And finally, the #1 way to tell you are on a wacko site:
1. They tell you that Gore won the election.
No offense, but that's going to sound pretty glib to somebody whose dream is to start a construction business. We were talking about the United States, not the lunch crowd at Lion & Compass.
I'll check with my inner child.
Nope. I take you just arrived. If I leave a comma out of a post in this thread, I'll hear about it.
Your assertion that if one makes a purcase of a ton of gold it won't affect the spot market price is patently idiotic, or do you remember what happened when the British stopped their selling in the middle of a sale of 35,000 ounces (that's about a ton)? Ashanti does! It caught them short on the options market and pushed them into bankruptcy (much to the delight of the British traders BTW).
There are thousands of products whose demand curve is flatter than gold. Try again.
Anyone is welcome to look at the original post #59 by me and then Nick's post #68 in response to establish the painfully obvious truth to any intellectually honest observer:
Nick is the only one to import Marxism and cartoon bankers into this thread. Doing so in the guise of supposedly properly characterizing the other guy's post, doesn't disguise the fact
I'm pretty sure he does this because he has no intellectual refutation. Can someone give a better explanation.
There are better points for you to argue, but I don't suppose you know how many construction businesses got their start on family money and partnerships (a form of private capital your comment ignored)? Ask Osama Bin Laden! Really, money would not fail to find a productive use were there no fractional banking, there would merely be less of it and it would be more difficult. That is not the absolute distinction you asserted, which is why I said what I did while you were so busy condescending. I did it to make you think a little harder because you were getting sloppy trying to deal with the rain of feces you were getting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.