PDA

View Full Version : Glenn Beck: Land backed currency - Chinese Troops




Brian4Liberty
10-28-2009, 03:25 PM
Wow, Beck's intro today on his tv show was something. A lot of money/debt stuff we are all very familiar with, but then he went further: a new Property/land backed currency, and Chinese troops being brought to America to defend the resources/currency our government will give them!

Aye Carumba!

YouTube - Glenn Beck Clips 10-28-09 Seg2A of 6 This portion the finish of Seg. 2 that was omitted today! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4DiODl47ps)

LittleLightShining
10-28-2009, 03:27 PM
If I'm not mistaken, Griffin goes into this a little in Creature from Jekyll Island. Not so much a land backed currency, but the Chinese taking over our property as collateral on debt.

Brian4Liberty
10-28-2009, 03:36 PM
Beck based this on extrapolating the Wiemar Republic hyper-inflation. Their new currency was based on German real estate. Then if you look at how China holds our debt, and how they have a hunger for resources (like they have in Africa), and how the US had foreign troops on our soil during the Revolutionary and Civil wars, he wonders if Chinese troops may have to come to the US to "help" out.

Dieseler
10-28-2009, 03:37 PM
That will work for Zombies.
Close enough.

MRoCkEd
10-28-2009, 03:38 PM
Did you notice he cited Mises.org for his money chart?

Brian4Liberty
10-28-2009, 03:54 PM
Did you notice he cited Mises.org for his money chart?

Missed that. :)

Che
10-28-2009, 04:03 PM
yea, i was watching it. it was good, enough with acorn shit and he got into real stuff that matters.

ravedown
10-28-2009, 04:05 PM
Becks best show probably ever- every segment was on point and didnt fall into the right vs left trap, he even made a comment on how both parties are hosed. loved the galveston/social security bit, one of the most eye opening things on tv i've seen in a while. its sooo much more effective to stick to concepts and policy ideas and stay outta the administration bashing rut. kudos.

sofia
10-28-2009, 04:05 PM
It is a common misconception that "China owns our debt."

At most, they hold about 15% of it or 1-1.5 trillion. (I'm too lazy to check right now)

There are other big creditors too (Taiwan, Saudis, Japan, Europe, US instituitions, and mom and pops.

But the largest holder BY FAR is the FED. If Chinese troops come here to enforce a debt, it's on the Central Bankers behalf, not Beijing.

What we owe the chinese is doable...what we owe the FED will soon be unpayable

Pericles
10-28-2009, 04:14 PM
That will work for Zombies.
Close enough.

Need more ammo (not that it is possible to have too much):mad:

jkr
10-28-2009, 04:24 PM
yep...why do you think we havent drilled for oil?

its collateral.


btw- im an alternative energy guy ( instead of buying a subscription service, you own the means of production)

kahless
10-28-2009, 04:41 PM
I have to catch the repeat. I always like to use China as an example when discussing with Neocons our engagements overseas. I ask how would they feel if Chinese troops were on our soil to help us if our economy collapses and enforce the rule of law. They get all outraged and then I ask how do you think the people whose land we occupy feel. It really is a wake up call for Neocons.

Old Ducker
10-28-2009, 04:56 PM
Beck needs to bone up on economics some more. His statement that the US went off the gold standard because there wasn't enough gold was moronic.

Sandman33
10-28-2009, 05:12 PM
Yes lets ship all our soldiers and weapons into the middle east...(to hunt Osama of course) And let the Chineese militarily occupy us..

Brian4Liberty
10-28-2009, 07:00 PM
Beck needs to bone up on economics some more. His statement that the US went off the gold standard because there wasn't enough gold was moronic.

Yeah, I always wonder when I hear that. It's not that there isn't enough gold, it's that the price doesn't go high enough...and that little problem with the Rothschild's hoarding it all... ;)

Zippyjuan
10-28-2009, 07:43 PM
It is a common misconception that "China owns our debt."

At most, they hold about 15% of it or 1-1.5 trillion. (I'm too lazy to check right now)

There are other big creditors too (Taiwan, Saudis, Japan, Europe, US instituitions, and mom and pops.

But the largest holder BY FAR is the FED. If Chinese troops come here to enforce a debt, it's on the Central Bankers behalf, not Beijing.

What we owe the chinese is doable...what we owe the FED will soon be unpayable

The Chinese recently passed Japan as the largest FOREIGN holder of the US debt In terms of Treasury Securities, China holds $797 billion worth as of August 2009 http://www.treas.gov/tic/mfh.txt out of a total debt of $12 trillion meaning they have about seven percent (6.66666..%) of it. $3.4 trillion is in foreign hands or 28%.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/29880401 (slide show of holders)

Biggest Holders of US Gov't Debt
As the US government spends an unprecedented amount of money to fix the nation's economy, there is an equally great need to raise the cash to pay for it. This is accomplished through borrowing, whereby Uncle Sam sells Treasury securities of varying maturity.

For investors, the government bills, notes and bonds are considered a safe financial product because they have a guaranteed rate of return, based on faith in future US tax revenues. The government has been partially funding operations via Treasury securities for decades. This borrowing adds to the national debt, which has climbed above $11 trillion and is rising every day. Much of that debt is held by private sector, but about 40 percent is held by public entities, including parts of the government. Here's who owns the most.

By Paul Toscano
Updated 27 Aug 2009

The slideshow reveals the rest.

Zippyjuan
10-28-2009, 07:48 PM
Yeah, I always wonder when I hear that. It's not that there isn't enough gold, it's that the price doesn't go high enough...and that little problem with the Rothschild's hoarding it all... ;)

As I understand it, Nixon closed the US Gold window because the exchange rate was lower than the international price of gold so countries were trading for it and reselling it- which supports the "we were running out of it" comment.

To quote Ron Paul:
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm

The U.S. did exactly what many predicted she would do. She printed more dollars for which there was no gold backing. But the world was content to accept those dollars for more than 25 years with little question-- until the French and others in the late 1960s demanded we fulfill our promise to pay one ounce of gold for each $35 they delivered to the U.S. Treasury. This resulted in a huge gold drain that brought an end to a very poorly devised pseudo-gold standard.

It all ended on August 15, 1971, when Nixon closed the gold window and refused to pay out any of our remaining 280 million ounces of gold. In essence, we declared our insolvency and everyone recognized some other monetary system had to be devised in order to bring stability to the markets.

jmdrake
10-28-2009, 07:50 PM
Beck based this on extrapolating the Wiemar Republic hyper-inflation. Their new currency was based on German real estate. Then if you look at how China holds our debt, and how they have a hunger for resources (like they have in Africa), and how the US had foreign troops on our soil during the Revolutionary and Civil wars, he wonders if Chinese troops may have to come to the US to "help" out.

Ok. There were British troops on U.S. soil during the revolutionary war (obviously), and Russian ships helped the North during the civil war, but what foreign troops were on U.S. soil during the civil war?

jmdrake
10-28-2009, 07:51 PM
Beck needs to bone up on economics some more. His statement that the US went off the gold standard because there wasn't enough gold was moronic.

Maybe he meant there's not enough gold to fund the ever expanding big government agenda. ;) (Wars, unbridled military spending, entitlements, NASA, etc).

awake
10-28-2009, 07:53 PM
So if Chinese troops set foot on U.S. soil, do we call it protecting and advancing democracy? Can it be called a foreign policy to protect their national interest?

The Irony.

1836er
10-28-2009, 08:05 PM
Ok. There were British troops on U.S. soil during the revolutionary war (obviously), and Russian ships helped the North during the civil war, but what foreign troops were on U.S. soil during the civil war?

There were "foreign" troops in my state and a number of others. I believe they were called damnyankees.

Austrian Econ Disciple
10-28-2009, 08:07 PM
There were "foreign" troops in my state and a number of others. I believe they were called damnyankees.

Amen. The Civil War wasn't actually a Civil War whatsoever. Damn revisionist Northern propaganda. The USA invaded the CSA.

Bossobass
10-28-2009, 08:52 PM
So if Chinese troops set foot on U.S. soil, do we call it protecting and advancing democracy? Can it be called a foreign policy to protect their national interest?

The Irony.

IMHO, it would be called Chinese troops suicide.

Bosso

Dieseler
10-28-2009, 09:01 PM
IMHO, it would be called Chinese troops suicide.

Bosso

Yup
Chinese Troops, Zombies...They all look the same to me.

Brian4Liberty
10-28-2009, 09:47 PM
As I understand it, Nixon closed the US Gold window because the exchange rate was lower than the international price of gold so countries were trading for it and reselling it- which supports the "we were running out of it" comment.


You mean "we" as in the US government was running out. Not "we" as in the public. But once again, the reason they were running out was because of a fixed (false, too low) price. Like I said, the price needs to go up. No shortage when the price is free to adjust to demand.

Brian4Liberty
10-28-2009, 10:17 PM
Ok. There were British troops on U.S. soil during the revolutionary war (obviously), and Russian ships helped the North during the civil war, but what foreign troops were on U.S. soil during the civil war?

Not sure what Beck's references were...

Off the top of my head, here's a guess:

At a minimum, there were French and German (Hessian) soldiers (as well as British) here (on US soil) during the Revolutionary war. Foreign interests were also involved in the Civil War. Mercenaries of all types on our soil. Of course outside interests played a part. England and France were more than ready to support the South (and that support may have influenced secession). Of course the South started losing, and the foreign "friends" (officially) stayed out . And as you referenced, the Russians didn't want to let the British get away with anything.

If the Afghan freedom fighters had never been successful against the Soviets, would we have ever admitted to the extent of our involvement? Did we have troops on the ground? According to Charlie Wilson's war we did..."adviser's" that is...

fj45lvr
10-29-2009, 02:22 AM
Beck needs to bone up on economics some more. His statement that the US went off the gold standard because there wasn't enough gold was moronic.


I understand what you mean but "because there wasn't enough gold" is TRUE (the Government didn't have enough to buy all they want to!!!! why they really want fiat.)

He probably intended to say that there wasn't enough in the whole world (lie) but in reality there wasn't enough in the Governments vaults for the welfare/warfare statist.

randomname
10-29-2009, 02:43 AM
YouTube - Glenn Beck Clips 10-28-09 Seg2A of 6 This portion the finish of Seg. 2 that was omitted today! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4DiODl47ps&feature=player_embedded#)

SimpleName
10-29-2009, 03:59 AM
Did you notice he cited Mises.org for his money chart?

GOSH DARNIT! (classy, I know) I was going to make that a point in my post. Oh well. I still have this post. Interesting to see. I had to rub my eyes a bit and look again to make sure. The entire segment was pretty good. Beck's simpleton mind helps my simpleton mind actually understand some things that I just can't get in my head. The Galveston SS thing later on was also good.

Brian4Liberty
10-29-2009, 11:25 AM
YouTube - Glenn Beck Clips 10-28-09 Seg2A of 6 This portion the finish of Seg. 2 that was omitted today!

thanks! added it to the op...

SwordOfShannarah
10-29-2009, 11:50 AM
This would require major awareness on the part of our citizenry, but couldn't we force the banking institutions that created this mess to pay it all back? Why should we let the banks keep their illegal profits from the last 100 years or so? It's our money.

The banks, the military industrial complex, big pharma, big agribusiness.. they should give the money back.

Zippyjuan
10-30-2009, 05:45 PM
Amen. The Civil War wasn't actually a Civil War whatsoever. Damn revisionist Northern propaganda. The USA invaded the CSA.

The first attack of the Civil war was the South attacking Fort Sumpter. Darn Southern revisioninst propoganda! hehe.
http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/civilwar/a/CivilWarFirst.htm

Dieseler
10-30-2009, 05:51 PM
The first attack of the Civil war was the South attacking Fort Sumpter. Darn Southern revisioninst propoganda! hehe.
http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/civilwar/a/CivilWarFirst.htm

Consider it an eviction.

Austrian Econ Disciple
10-30-2009, 06:10 PM
The first attack of the Civil war was the South attacking Fort Sumpter. Darn Southern revisioninst propoganda! hehe.
http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/civilwar/a/CivilWarFirst.htm

No. You call stationing foreign troops on sovereign CSA soil not an attack? Lincoln refused to remove the troops and the CSA gave them ample time and warning.

You would also call the Japanese, after telling us to leave their country and us saying fuck off and them then attacking us to evict us, that they instigated the situation and we weren't the aggressors?

Remember, the CSA was no longer part of the USA. It was a SOVEREIGN nation just like Mexico. They had every right, duty, and obligation to evict all foreign military presence. Secondly, and lastly, the South refused to march to DC after Manassas precisely because we were defending our homeland and not fighting in a war of aggression as the North was.

RoamZero
10-30-2009, 09:10 PM
I think Beck is outlining a worst case scenario. To me it seems that it would be more likely that with any hyper inflationary signs either the Fed will raise interest rates (economy be damned) or a new (fiat) currency will be issued with a trade-in policy on the US dollar.