Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 47

Thread: BANKERS TELL IT LIKE IT IS

  1. #1

    Default BANKERS TELL IT LIKE IT IS

    BANKERS TELL IT LIKE IT IS
    TOP 10 QUOTES THAT REVEAL THEIR CRIMES

    Posted on March 4, 2014 by Liberty Staff


    BankerExecRunningThe alternate financial media has been abuzz of late with bizarre stories of the alleged suicides of prominent members of world banking and finance. Over recent weeks, between eight and twelve (some say as many as twenty) successful traders and managers involved with FOREX trading and other derivative currency speculation, have conveniently “decided” to throw themselves from the roof tops of a variety of JP Morgan Chase banks in London, Hong Kong, and New York. Another top banking official, William Broeksmit, former executive at Deutsche Bank, was found hanged in his London home.

    And others with strong connections to investment banking and the Federal Reserve itself have likewise met unusual deaths. Michael Dueker, former vice president of the St. Louis branch of the Federal Reserve, was found at the bottom of a fifty foot embankment below where he had just parked his car in Tacoma, Washington. The cause of death is still undetermined. The strangest of these deaths was Richard Talley, a former investment banker with Drexel Burnham Lambert who was alleged to have shot himself with a nail gun at least ten times in his Centennial, Colorado, home.

    The keen observer will note that a great number of these deaths have occurred in tandem with the extensive multinational regulatory agency investigations of egregious fraud, price fixing, and “front run” trading in the FOREX markets and in the LIBOR index. These markets are gigantic and it is hard for the novice to comprehend the magnitude of money that is involved in daily transactions for both of these. The weekly volume on the FOREX market alone is excess of $20 trillion.

    As of two weeks ago, no less than ten global banking giants including JP Morgan Chase, Royal Bank of Scotland, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse, Lloyds Banking Group, and others, have found themselves the object of a litany of criminal probes that undoubtedly have created tension and fear, bordering on “flight or fight” panic within these banking conglomerates. Only the extremely naïve could find it hard to believe that the banking world, in order to cover up and protect itself from prosecution of the greatest financial crimes and frauds in history, would not resort to measures of extreme prejudice to eliminate potential material witnesses.

    The key point to understand here, however, is that this is not at all a new phenomenon. The history of banking in the modern era (since the establishment of the Bank of England in the late 17th century), has been nothing but an ugly cavalcade of theft of sovereign national treasuries too vast to calculate. From the beginning, these large private central banks (the Bank of England, the Federal Reserve, the Bank of Japan, etc.), were intentionally designed to operate freely above the rule of law in their respective nations. They have been the financiers of most of the conflicts and wars in the last two centuries and are continuing to do so unabated to the present. Countless millions have died in these bankers’ wars in service to the unbridled greed of these financiers.

    Through the massive inflation of each nation’s currency they dominate, the bankers have robbed the citizens of the purchasing power of their money and with it, their life savings. Since the establishment of the Federal Reserve in 1913, for example, the purchasing power of the US dollar has been eroded to nearly 1/100th of its original value. This has not been accidental. This was planned from the beginning. Private fractional reserve central banking is the greatest criminal conspiracy that continues to this day to hide in plain sight.

    But please, don’t just think this is only our opinion. Fascinatingly, the bankers themselves have throughout the decades, clearly revealed their purpose and intent. At this juncture, we would like to offer some quotes for you by the highest ranking members of the banking elite, past and present.

    “The bank hath benefit of interest on all moneys which it creates out of nothing.”
    William Paterson, founder of the Bank of England in 1694

    “Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.”
    Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744-1812), founder of the House of Rothschild.

    “If my sons did not want wars, there would be none.”
    Gutle Schnaper, wife of Mayer Amschel Rothschild and mother of his five sons

    “The few who understand the system will either be so interested in its profits or be so dependent upon its favours that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests.”

    The Rothschild brothers of London writing to associates in New York, 1863

    “Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The Bankers own the Earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of a pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for this world would be a happier and better world to live in. But if you wish to remain slaves of the Bankers and pay for the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create deposits.”
    Sir Josiah Stamp, President of the Bank of England in the 1920s, the second richest man in Britain

    “When you or I write a check, there must be sufficient funds in our account to cover the check; but when the Federal Reserve writes a check, there is no bank deposit on which that check is drawn. When the Federal Reserve writes a check, it is creating money.”
    From the Boston Federal Reserve Bank pamphlet, “Putting it Simply.”

    “Neither paper currency nor deposits have value as commodities. Intrinsically, a ‘dollar’ bill is just a piece of paper. Deposits are merely book entries.”

    “Modern Money Mechanics Workbook” – Federal Reserve of Chicago, 1975

    “I am afraid the ordinary citizen will not like to be told that the banks can and do create money. And they who control the credit of the nation direct the policy of Governments and hold in the hollow of their hand the destiny of the people.”
    Reginald McKenna, as Chairman of the Midland Bank, addressing stockholders in 1924

    “I am just a banker doing God’s work.”
    Lloyd Blankfein, CEO, Goldman Sachs, 2009

    “Banks do not have an obligation to promote the public good.”
    Alexander Dielius, CEO, Germany, Austrian, Eastern Europe Goldman Sachs, 2010

    So there it is in their own words. The arrogance, elitism, and condescension of bankers towards the common citizen are starkly revealed. These brilliant criminals have created the Ponzi scheme of all Ponzi schemes and so far, protected it from any form of criminal prosecution. However, that might be about to change. Awareness of their criminality is growing throughout the world at a rapid pace but never doubt that this group will fight tenaciously and be willing to go to any extremes to protect their centuries’ old scam. We predict there will undoubtedly be more strange banker deaths ahead of us in the ensuing weeks, months, and years.

    The next time you walk into your local bank, please ask yourself this question, “Do I really want to entrust my hard earned wages and savings to a centuries’ old criminal scheme?” If you don’t, please consider gold and silver for protection of your wealth.”



    © Copyright 2013 Liberty Gold and Silver, All rights Reserved.
    Written For: Liberty Gold and Silver News Blog

    http://www.libertygoldandsilver.com/...verBlog/?p=385
    Last edited by Danke; 03-07-2014 at 11:38 AM.

    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!


    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Default

    The world needs a new financial system in the worst of ways. One which will benefit the people, instead of robbing them. Bitcoin is intriguing because of it's lack of centralization. But it too like fiat money has no intrinsic value and it's unstable. Gold and silver are stable, and have intrinsic value. They best meet the criteria for an honest, rock solid monetary system.
    Last edited by DFF; 03-07-2014 at 10:33 AM.

  4. #3

    Default

    yo

    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!


    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  5. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Danke View Post
    But please, don’t just think this is only our opinion. Fascinatingly, the bankers themselves have throughout the decades, clearly revealed their purpose and intent. At this juncture, we would like to offer some quotes for you by the highest ranking members of the banking elite, past and present.
    Quote Originally Posted by Danke View Post
    “The bank hath benefit of interest on all moneys which it creates out of nothing.”
    William Paterson, founder of the Bank of England in 1694
    Would you consider yourself educated on the banking system in England in 1694? I'm not. I'm wondering if you know how loans were securitized in 1694?

    Quote Originally Posted by Danke View Post
    “Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.”
    Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744-1812), founder of the House of Rothschild.
    Well, it's a good thing that the Fed does not issue the nation's money.

    Now, this will create an enormous amount of consternation here and will undoubtedly earn me -rep for having the audacity to disagree with the consensus of some of this forums fiercest Fed haters.

    I could be wrong which is why I came to places like this. Perhaps someone will explain something I don't know. I'm happy to lay out my evidence and evaluate the arguments of others. I hope the Fed haters will tell me, with facts and evidence why they are right or why I'm wrong.



    Quote Originally Posted by Danke View Post
    “If my sons did not want wars, there would be none.”
    Gutle Schnaper, wife of Mayer Amschel Rothschild and mother of his five sons

    “The few who understand the system will either be so interested in its profits or be so dependent upon its favours that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests.”

    The Rothschild brothers of London writing to associates in New York, 1863

    “Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The Bankers own the Earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of a pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for this world would be a happier and better world to live in. But if you wish to remain slaves of the Bankers and pay for the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create deposits.”
    Sir Josiah Stamp, President of the Bank of England in the 1920s, the second richest man in Britain
    There are varying amounts of truth in these statements mostly because the money system at the time was much different.

    Quote Originally Posted by Danke View Post
    “When you or I write a check, there must be sufficient funds in our account to cover the check; but when the Federal Reserve writes a check, there is no bank deposit on which that check is drawn. When the Federal Reserve writes a check, it is creating money.”
    From the Boston Federal Reserve Bank pamphlet, “Putting it Simply.”
    There is some truth to this, however, the unspoken implication of this quote seems to say that the Fed is "writing checks" and acquiring things of value that benifit some wealthy banker somewhere.
    Quote Originally Posted by Danke View Post
    “Neither paper currency nor deposits have value as commodities. Intrinsically, a ‘dollar’ bill is just a piece of paper. Deposits are merely book entries.”
    “Modern Money Mechanics Workbook” – Federal Reserve of Chicago, 1975
    This is, so far the single most truthful statement that you've quoted yet.

    Quote Originally Posted by Danke View Post
    “I am afraid the ordinary citizen will not like to be told that the banks can and do create money. And they who control the credit of the nation direct the policy of Governments and hold in the hollow of their hand the destiny of the people.”
    Reginald McKenna, as Chairman of the Midland Bank, addressing stockholders in 1924
    When I go into a bank to take out a loan...What happens? What are the steps?

    Let's say I want to buy a car.

    I think most here are one step ahead of most people who believeve that the bank lends from other customers deposits. We know this isn't true.

    So how does it happen? Where does a bank get money?

    When I fill out an application for a loan (let's say a car loan) if it's approved I fill out loan docs promising to repay the amount of the loan plus interest. The docs as some of you probably know, are called a "promisory note". A "note" in fiscal parlance is something of value. What is the value? The value is equal to the interest.

    So the "note" and the money are created simultaneously. Thus:

    Bank

    Asset=Note
    Libility=Money created

    Borrower

    Asset=Money
    Libility=Note

    So does the money create the justification for the note or does the note create the justification for the money?

    Clearly, the money the bank creates can only be created as a result of the asset that the borrower created when they signed the note.

    Thus, banks cannot create money without depositing an asset of equal (or greater) value.

    In the event that the borrower doesn't repay, are the banks still responsible for their liabilities? Yes.

    If I don't repay the first step is for the bank to attempt to collect any collateral.

    The collateral collected isn't something that belongs to the bank. They must sell it and use the proceeds to repay the unpaid portion of the loan.

    What if the collateral is worth more than the unpaid payments? Does the bank get to keep the difference?

    No, the bank can only keep the money to repay the loan and recover any costs (like legal fees). If there is any money left, the rest goes to the borrower.

    Because the bank created the money from nothing when it's repaid it returns to nothing.

    So I borrow $10k for car:

    Bank

    Asset=Note worth $10k (+ interest)
    Libility=Money created -$10k

    Borrower

    Asset=Money $10k
    Libility=Note -$10k (+ interest)

    When the loan is taken and spent the economy is +$10k

    The economy loses money each month equal to the amount of each payment until the loan is repaid and the original $10k is removed from the economy. The interest is not removed from the economy (because the bank earns the interest as an income and spends it paying for its expenses and as profits)

    Now you may still disagree with this system, I'm not attempting to defend it, I'm just asking, would you agree this is how bank loans work?

    If not, please explain.

    Quote Originally Posted by Danke View Post
    “I am just a banker doing God’s work.”
    Lloyd Blankfein, CEO, Goldman Sachs, 2009
    The commercial financial sector has become incredibly parasitic and there is a lot that should be changed. For those the beleive that "sound money" will solve this problem, can you explain?

    Quote Originally Posted by Danke View Post
    “Banks do not have an obligation to promote the public good.”
    Alexander Dielius, CEO, Germany, Austrian, Eastern Europe Goldman Sachs, 2010
    That was the original intent, but I agree with the cultural changes that have happened over the last 40 years, there is no expectation that companies, including banks have any moral responsibility to anyone but their investors.

    Again, I'm a little curious to know, how do Libertarians see this improving under Libertarian leadership?

    Respecfully,

    E4E1

  6. #5

    Default

    ^^^^^^
    I stopped reading when you said a bank loaned you money to buy a car. All of your words are inaccurate and misleading and if you actually believe what you are writing then you are no less brainwashed than the next guy, regardless of how long-winded your posts are.

    A bank doesn't do anything. A bank is a piece of paper. That is all. Loans from banks do not exist. The "loan" is actually the imaginary bank issuing you your own credit, which is something you can do on your own without the "help" of a bank legal entity. That is why it always needs your signature. You are authorizing the bank entity to issue you your own credit (your own labor, really) but with the bank's rules, and jurisdiction, attached. You do not "buy" a car with a loan. You rent the car, since the piece of paper that designates who has legal ownership of the car, called "Certificate of Origin", is filed with another piece of paper legal entity called a "State Government". You never see or touch that paper and thus never "buy" the car, therefore you never "own" the car, either. Guess who owns it? Money is not exchanged since money, by definition, has value. Currency, however, has no value. So, in essence, you are authorizing a piece of paper to issue you valueless currency in exchange for your valuable labor to obtain a good that you never own. Get it?
    Last edited by devil21; 04-14-2018 at 01:10 AM.
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    The entire internet is the domain of paid shills and bots. If you don't know this by now....

    Israel, under control of the Crown and, ultimately, the Vatican, own the USA. If you don't know this by now....

    Talk to people about liberty. You won't find it on websites, you won't find it in politicians.

    Visiting the Outer Banks of NC?
    Outer Banks NC House Boat Rentals

  7. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    ^^^^^^
    I stopped reading when you said a bank loaned you money to buy a car. All of your words are inaccurate and misleading and if you actually believe what you are writing then you are no less brainwashed than the next guy, regardless of how long-winded your posts are.
    Yes, I used terms that most people are familiar with. If you understand that banks don't loan money. Congratulations, you are smarter than the average bear.

    I admit you are correct, banks don't "loan" anything because in order to loan something you have to have it in the first place. This is why "loan" documents (when you borrow from a Fed member bank) don't actually say "loan" on them. They say "promissory note", thus banks don't make loans, they create credit by expanding their balance sheets.

    The credit they create is their liability and the note is the asset.

    How's that?


    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    A bank doesn't do anything.
    This is incorrect. Banks, at least when our system functions as intended, do something.

    If I take credit from a bank, tell me, do you know what happens if I don't repay?

    Let's say I "borrowed money" (again using familiar terms) to buy a car.

    Let's say I don't get insurance as I should and I set the car on fire and move to Costa Rica and I don't repay the $25k.

    Tell me, do you know who pays?

    The economy now has $25k more than it had before I took the loan. That $25k is indistinguishable from any other money because banks are allowed to create my credit in the government's unit of account.

    Obviously, if bad loans were allowed to continually pile up and remain in the economy this could create a problem. It would also create an incentive for banks to create money and simply not repay if no one were responsible.

    So tell me, do you know who pays in the event I do not? If you know the answer then you know that banks "don't do nothing".


    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    Loans from banks do not exist. The "loan" is actually the imaginary bank issuing you your own credit, which is something you can do on your own without the "help" of a bank legal entity.
    I wrote the above without reading through your entire response....Yes, in some sense you are correct and I agree. And I would agree you can issue your own credit. People do it all the time. The difference is that when we create credit via a bank our credit is created in a standard unit of account. This makes it a lot more likely that people that don't know us will accept our credit because they can use to buy anything priced in that unit of account.

    In other words, I have no use for stuffed animals. If someone offered me credit and all I could buy was stuffed animals, in real terms those toys have value to someone, but unless buyers and sellers can meet, transactions don't happen.

    What you're really talking about is barter, a form of trade that, despite belief, hasn't happened in thousands of years on a large scale. Yes, barter may have taken place on a smaller scale, but in the world's more populated areas (cities) barter hasn't been a useful form of trade in thousands of years. Even in England several hundred years ago when gold and silver were rare they used sticks (called tally sticks, perhaps you are familiar?). There is evidence in ancient Sumeria they used money.


    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    That is why it always needs your signature. You are authorizing the bank entity to issue you your own credit (your own labor, really) but with the bank's rules, and jurisdiction, attached. You do not "buy" a car with a loan. You rent the car, since the piece of paper that designates who has legal ownership of the car, called "Certificate of Origin", is filled with another piece of paper legal entity called a "State Government".
    This is why you shouldn't be so smug in your answers because you are wrong about this.

    When you buy a car, you own the car.

    When you lease a car you rent it.

    There are several pieces of evidence to this fact.

    First, when you lease, you cannot make changes to the car. It's considered the damage and will be taken from your security deposit. When you buy the car you can do whatever you want to it. You can paint it, you can cut the roof off, you can do whatever you want to it. If it is repossessed, they cannot collect damages because when you made the changes, the car belonged to you.

    When you examine the balance sheet of the bank, They cannot "own" the car because they would have to carry the car as an asset. The problem with that is they would have twice as many assets for every liability. The car and the note would be assets and the credit created is the bank's liability. That doesn't work.

    Furthermore, when buying the car, the bank doesn't purchase the car. It cannot because banks can only facilitate the purchase which is why the check has your name on it. The bank doesn't write the check in its name and then sell the car to you.

    However, having said all of that, the bank owns the legal right to take possession of your property as collateral in the event you fail to repay. But as the last bit of evidence to the fact that banks don't own the car or house or whatever, is when your property is sold, if the value of the property is more than the outstanding balance + fees to facilitate the sale, the borrower get's the remainder. For example. If you defaulted on your home in the last year of a 30 year "loan", the bank doesn't get to keep all of the money in the sale of your home. Just what it needs to cover your losses.

    You would get the rest and pay CG tax on your profits.

    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    You never see or touch that paper and thus never "buy" the car, therefore you never "own" the car, either. Guess who owns it? Money is not exchanged since money, by definition, has value. Currency, however, has no value. So, in essence, you are authorizing a piece of paper to issue you valueless currency in exchange for your valuable labor to obtain a good that you never own. Get it?
    Again, all the evidence says otherwise, though I am aware that the title of a car represents ownership and in some states they have some odd systems that allow the bank to hold the title (rather than the state as is the case in many places)> I admit this may make it appear that the bank is holding ownership, however, check the banks books. They don't have a pile of assets in the cars they own that people are paying on. I assure you there are laws that you are unaware of that, despite the fact the bank is allowed to hold the title, they don't own the car. They just own the legal right to take possession in the event you fail to repay as agreed.
    Last edited by econ4every1; 04-14-2018 at 07:34 AM.

  8. #7

    Default

    I don't have the inclination or the time to school you much longer, however no you never own the car. The title you receive is a use title, entitling you to possession of the car (the 9/10 of the law thing....it's that last 1/10 that matters though) but never ownership. Why do you think a cop can tow your car away for a violation of motor vehicle code? Because the STATE is the owner of the car, not you. The state holds the ownership title, called Certificate of Origin. You get a use title that allows for your possession and you register the car so the state knows where to find the state's property! All you're really doing with your posts is attempting, with some points accurate and others inaccurate, to explain the financial/legal Matrix that has been set up around us. If you own something, why do you need permission from the state to use it? If you need permission then it's not yours. Very simple. Banks, governments, etc are nothing more than pieces of paper. They are comprised of similarly brainwashed people that also believe, like you, that a "bank" is something more or a "government" is something more. Nope, sorry, just groups of brainwashed people carrying out duties that they usually don't understand past procedures they're trained to carry out.
    Last edited by devil21; 04-14-2018 at 10:13 AM.
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    The entire internet is the domain of paid shills and bots. If you don't know this by now....

    Israel, under control of the Crown and, ultimately, the Vatican, own the USA. If you don't know this by now....

    Talk to people about liberty. You won't find it on websites, you won't find it in politicians.

    Visiting the Outer Banks of NC?
    Outer Banks NC House Boat Rentals

  9. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by econ4every1 View Post
    This is why you shouldn't be so smug in your answers because you are wrong about this.

    Maybe you should take your own advice. My perception of you is a smug guy who busted into the forum with the intention of schooling everyone without listening. Okay fine; that's just the nature of forums sometimes, but I am guessing you're here for purpose, aren't you? If so, then what is the purpose? Are you running for some DNC 2020 leadership position as suggested by Dennis Tate in your video interview with Steve Grumbine? Or, are you just someone who does this as a hobby?

    I think the questions are important because it speaks of trust. I see trust as being part of this issue. An example would be the aforementioned discussion between you and Devil21 on the difference between getting credit versus creating your own credit.

    I trust what @devil21 says, although I don't always understand what he is talking about. The same with @acptulsa. That's why I think this could be a good discussion. I don't really have problem with your posting here because it doesn't look to me (so far) like you're paid to post. Some might not care what I think because I'm just some guy on the internet; however, you might care what people think because you're, of course, trying to reach people with some kind of message.

    I always filter what someone says through a lens of trust. ZippyJuan and TheCount are paid to post here. They converse about economics, but what they say is met with skepticism because of their motivations. There is a good reason why they are not trusted. It really doesn't matter how much they "know." In other words, it's not what they post, but why they post it. I'm not going to forever listen with bated breath to someone whose purpose is to undermine.

    So, I want to know why someone speaks. Are they trying to persuade me? Are they trying to inform me? If so, then why? Maybe they just like to mix it up because it has some personal or ego appeal. That's fine.

    I think it's been a decent and civil discussion so far. These discussions are good because I have to work extra hard to wrap my head around some economic concepts. I would like to hear from Devil21, ACPTulsa, or others on this issue.
    Last edited by NorthCarolinaLiberty; 04-14-2018 at 11:51 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    which one of yall fuckers wrote the "ron paul" racist news letters
    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    Zippy's posts are a great contribution.




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members

  10. #9

    Default

    I own the shirt on my back. I say that because I don't pay perpetual taxes on it. I don't think I own my car or my house because I have to keep paying for them with taxes. Am I right or not?


    Definition time!


    Owner. Noun. 1. A party that possesses the exclusive right to hold, use, benefit-from, enjoy, convey, transfer, and otherwise dispose of an asset or property.

    http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/owner.html
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    which one of yall fuckers wrote the "ron paul" racist news letters
    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    Zippy's posts are a great contribution.




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members

  11. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
    I own the shirt on my back. I say that because I don't pay perpetual taxes on it. I don't think I own my car or my house because I have to keep paying for them with taxes. Am I right or not?


    Definition time!


    Owner. Noun. 1. A party that possesses the exclusive right to hold, use, benefit-from, enjoy, convey, transfer, and otherwise dispose of an asset or property.

    http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/owner.html
    You should check definitions of words on Black's Law website instead of generic dictionary sites. You'll often find that the definition of words, legally (and that is the 1/10 that matters since it's the 1/10 that's enforced by people with guns), is different than the definition of a word according to generic dictionary websites.

    Black's Law definition of "owner"
    https://thelawdictionary.org/legal-owner/

    Entity with an asset’s or property’s enforceable claim or title. Lawfully recognized. For example, a person or company owning a property will be a lender with legal ownership who can lease or mortgage the property as collateral for loan payment. A borrower, renter, lessee retains only the right of redemption in it as its legal possessor.
    Legal possessor....guess who that is?

    Btw, if you default on a credit card and a legal judgment is obtained against you, a sheriff can auction that shirt on your back. That tells you who really owns that shirt. You are only the renter of the shirt. The legal possessor. The owner of the shirt is who can force it to be sold without your permission. By purchasing something with privately owned currency (Federal Reserve Note), the owner of the currency is the owner of the merchandise purchased with that currency.

    eta: good link about Certificates of Origin and how you CAN NOT obtain it. The DMV will issue you the "title" (it's permission to possess the car) all day long but the state will NEVER give you the Certificate.
    https://govbanknotes.wordpress.com/2...ate-of-origin/
    Last edited by devil21; 04-15-2018 at 05:24 PM.
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    The entire internet is the domain of paid shills and bots. If you don't know this by now....

    Israel, under control of the Crown and, ultimately, the Vatican, own the USA. If you don't know this by now....

    Talk to people about liberty. You won't find it on websites, you won't find it in politicians.

    Visiting the Outer Banks of NC?
    Outer Banks NC House Boat Rentals

  12. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    I don't have the inclination or the time to school you much longer, however no you never own the car. The title you receive is a use title, entitling you to possession of the car (the 9/10 of the law thing....it's that last 1/10 that matters though) but never ownership. Why do you think a cop can tow your car away for a violation of motor vehicle code? Because the STATE is the owner of the car, not you. The state holds the ownership title, called Certificate of Origin. You get a use title that allows for your possession and you register the car so the state knows where to find the state's property! All you're really doing with your posts is attempting, with some points accurate and others inaccurate, to explain the financial/legal Matrix that has been set up around us. If you own something, why do you need permission from the state to use it? If you need permission then it's not yours. Very simple. Banks, governments, etc are nothing more than pieces of paper. They are comprised of similarly brainwashed people that also believe, like you, that a "bank" is something more or a "government" is something more. Nope, sorry, just groups of brainwashed people carrying out duties that they usually don't understand past procedures they're trained to carry out.
    Could I, if I wanted too, put my car, that has no lien against it, on a boat and take it to another country or my own private island?

  13. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    You should check definitions of words on Black's Law website instead of generic dictionary sites. You'll often find that the definition of words, legally (and that is the 1/10 that matters since it's the 1/10 that's enforced by people with guns), is different than the definition of a word according to generic dictionary websites.

    Black's Law definition of "owner"
    https://thelawdictionary.org/legal-owner/



    Legal possessor....guess who that is?

    Btw, if you default on a credit card and a legal judgment is obtained against you, a sheriff can auction that shirt on your back. That tells you who really owns that shirt. You are only the renter of the shirt. The legal possessor. The owner of the shirt is who can force it to be sold without your permission. By purchasing something with privately owned currency (Federal Reserve Note), the owner of the currency is the owner of the merchandise purchased with that currency.
    I guess my first question is, why do you think its ok to make a promise to repay and then not meet your obligations and responsibilities?

    And if you are right, why are people able to declare bankruptcy and allowed to exempt some or all of their property?

    What you are defining is really part of a social contract. Whithout it, the risk of lending would be much higher and growth would be lower as higher risks would result in higher costs. This would stifle growth and innovation.

  14. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by econ4every1 View Post
    I guess my first question is, why do you think its ok to make a promise to repay and then not meet your obligations and responsibilities?

    And if you are right, why are people able to declare bankruptcy and allowed to exempt some or all of their property?

    What you are defining is really part of a social contract. Whithout it, the risk of lending would be much higher and growth would be lower as higher risks would result in higher costs. This would stifle growth and innovation.
    Stay on topic. No one brought up anything about "responsibilities" except you. Turning it into a moral discussion instead of a factual discussion shows you're not serious about learning.

    The term "social contract" is actually a legal contract, not some ethereal bond between people. By partaking of the private Federal Reserve System you are entering into a legal contract. The terms of the contract are not disclosed but it is what is called an "adhesion contract". To reserve your rights against terms not disclosed when entering into an express or implied adhesion contract, the Uniform Commercial Code of each state and country (the statutes that govern all business) has a remedy included. It's in your state's UCC section as 1-308, with some state specific code section. In NC, it is GS 25-1-308. Why do you think you sign things like driver's licenses, social security cards and bank signature cards? You're entering into a contract. Social contracts, all of them.

    Quote Originally Posted by econ4every1 View Post
    Could I, if I wanted too, put my car, that has no lien against it, on a boat and take it to another country or my own private island?
    We're reaching the point of rather ridiculous scenarios. Your private island, perhaps. You still wouldn't own it but you'd have final possession of it, not realistically subject to seizure, and have some freedom. Congrats on having a private island and a car to drive around on it. To remove it to a different country requires much customs approvals and legal paperwork. I don't know whether the Certificate of Origin is transferred to the new country or if a new one is issued once the car reaches the new port. Since 99% of countries are controlled by Rothschild central banks, it's easy to assume the same processes are in place in each one. eta: the link I posted above about MCOs covers some of that topic.
    Last edited by devil21; 04-15-2018 at 05:28 PM.
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    The entire internet is the domain of paid shills and bots. If you don't know this by now....

    Israel, under control of the Crown and, ultimately, the Vatican, own the USA. If you don't know this by now....

    Talk to people about liberty. You won't find it on websites, you won't find it in politicians.

    Visiting the Outer Banks of NC?
    Outer Banks NC House Boat Rentals

  15. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    Stay on topic. No one brought up anything about "responsibilities" except you. Turning it into a moral discussion instead of a factual discussion shows you're not serious about learning.
    While morality is certainly a factor, nothing in my response had anything to do with morality. The fact that you can't see that speaks volumes.

    Without the socialized enforcement of debts, the risk of borrowing would increase making borrowing more expensive slowing economic progress. That's not a moral issue, that's an economic one.

    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    The term "social contract" is actually a legal contract, not some ethereal bond between people. By partaking of the private Federal Reserve System you are entering into a legal contract. The terms of the contract are not disclosed but it is what is called an "adhesion contract". To reserve your rights against terms not disclosed when entering into an express or implied adhesion contract, the Uniform Commercial Code of each state and country (the statutes that govern all business) has a remedy included. It's in your state's UCC section as 1-308, with some state specific code section. In NC, it is GS 25-1-308. Why do you think you sign things like driver's licenses, social security cards and bank signature cards? You're entering into a contract. Social contracts, all of them.
    Definition of social contract

    an actual or hypothetical agreement among the members of an organized society or between a community and its ruler that defines and limits the rights and duties of each. -Merriam Webster

    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    We're reaching the point of
    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    rather ridiculous scenarios. Your private island, perhaps. You still wouldn't own it but you'd have final possession of it, not realistically subject to seizure, and have some freedom.


    Ok, you don't like my "private island" scenario, what if I drove my car to live in Canada, would any entity in the US still have "ownership"? Would I be stopped at the border and told I had no right to leave with the car because it didn't belong to me? Nope, not in any meaningful sense of the term. You corrupted the meaning of ownership (or lack thereof) for ideological reasons.

    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    Congrats on having a private island and a car to drive around on it. To remove it to a different country requires much customs approvals and legal paperwork. I don't know whether the Certificate of Origin is transferred to the new country or if a new one is issued once the car reaches the new port.
    This statement is completely inconsistent with your claims.

    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    Since 99% of countries are controlled by Rothschild central banks, it's easy to assume the same processes are in place in each one. eta: the link I posted above about MCOs covers some of that topic.
    Conspiracy nonsense.

  16. #15

    Default

    Thanks for exposing yourself with that last post. You'll earn your title as Baby Big Red Stick (lol) here soon enough.
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    The entire internet is the domain of paid shills and bots. If you don't know this by now....

    Israel, under control of the Crown and, ultimately, the Vatican, own the USA. If you don't know this by now....

    Talk to people about liberty. You won't find it on websites, you won't find it in politicians.

    Visiting the Outer Banks of NC?
    Outer Banks NC House Boat Rentals

  17. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    Thanks for exposing yourself with that last post. You'll earn your title as Baby Big Red Stick (lol) here soon enough.
    Ad Hominem saves the day!!!

    Well, at least you don't have to debate.

    Look if you can't have an adult conversation just say you aren't interested. I'll add you to my slowing growing list of people who would rather call names and leave negative rep than address the topic.

    Respectfully,

    E4E1

  18. #17

    Default

    Another person that can't talk like a big boy and instead leaves me -rep.


    And would you be allowed to enter Canada in a rented car...?
    Sure, because rental cars are secured by your credit.

    If I leave the US with my car, that I bought and move to Canada (or any another country or my own private island), no one would stop me (for taking my car) because it's mine. My credit, after I left the US, would be the same as it was when I left assuming that I paid, or was paying pursuant to the promissory agreement I signed to obtain the car.
    Last edited by econ4every1; 04-15-2018 at 08:07 PM.

  19. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    Thanks for exposing yourself with that last post. You'll earn your title as Baby Big Red Stick (lol) here soon enough.
    LOL
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    which one of yall fuckers wrote the "ron paul" racist news letters
    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    Zippy's posts are a great contribution.




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members

  20. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by econ4every1 View Post
    [COLOR=#3E3E3E]Another person that can't talk like a big boy and instead leaves me -rep.

    Maybe you need to start answering questions instead of trying to lecture people. Capturing flies with honey and all that.
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    which one of yall fuckers wrote the "ron paul" racist news letters
    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    Zippy's posts are a great contribution.




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members

  21. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
    Maybe you need to start answering questions instead of trying to lecture people. Capturing flies with honey and all that.
    Please post a list of question's I've failed to answer.

    Respectfully,

    E4E1

  22. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by econ4every1 View Post
    Please post a list of question's I've failed to answer.

    Respectfully,

    E4E1
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...42#post6616942
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    which one of yall fuckers wrote the "ron paul" racist news letters
    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    Zippy's posts are a great contribution.




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members

  23. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by econ4every1 View Post
    Ad Hominem saves the day!!!

    Well, at least you don't have to debate.

    Look if you can't have an adult conversation just say you aren't interested. I'll add you to my slowing growing list of people who would rather call names and leave negative rep than address the topic.

    Respectfully,

    E4E1
    Feel free to find a forum that is more suitable to your tastes. I don't expect you'll receive a much warmer response from others, either.

    If you truly think that mentioning that almost every country is controlled by a Rothschild central bank is "conspiracy theory" then you're either a shill or still much less educated than your college econ classes have led you to believe.
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    The entire internet is the domain of paid shills and bots. If you don't know this by now....

    Israel, under control of the Crown and, ultimately, the Vatican, own the USA. If you don't know this by now....

    Talk to people about liberty. You won't find it on websites, you won't find it in politicians.

    Visiting the Outer Banks of NC?
    Outer Banks NC House Boat Rentals

  24. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?445736-BANKERS-TELL-IT-LIKE-IT-IS&p=6616942#post6616942

    Frankly, my impression of you thus far has simply been a nay-sayer interested only in sewing doubt so I admit I read right past your post and intended to keep doing so in the future as I didn't see your contributions as productive. I've read your post in full and see you've made a bit of effort, so I will do the same....


    Quote Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
    Maybe you should take your own advice. My perception of you is a smug guy who busted into the forum with the intention of schooling everyone without listening.

    Yes, I understand that's how I come across. I do my best to let others know I mean no disrespect, but I don't sugar coat things and if the snowflakes get all butt-hurt because they don't like what I have to say, I encourage them to leave their negative rep and get it over with so I can spend time discussing with people that are interested in two way conversation.


    Quote Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
    Okay fine; that's just the nature of forums sometimes, but I am guessing you're here for purpose, aren't you? If so, then what is the purpose? Are you running for some DNC 2020 leadership position as suggested by Dennis Tate in your video interview with Steve Grumbine? Or, are you just someone who does this as a hobby?

    Oh, I thought you were talking about questions in the context of the forum we're discussing in (economics) or the topic of the thread (BANKERS TELL IT LIKE IT IS).


    You were questioning my motives (now that I've taken the time to read your posts). First, I don't hide who I am, if I wanted to do that, do you think I would be using the same reasonably unique screen name in several forums?


    I don't tend to advertise who I am as I find that most people will try to size me up before they speak to me and know all the reasons why I'm wrong before they ever actually talk to me. Eventually who I am and the ideas I hold come out. Nothing to hide....


    To answer your question concerning my motives. I assure you I'm just a person who's not affiliated with any organization, movement, an ideological or political group who enjoys talking about economics. Groups like this one present a different point of view then I get when I converse with people who generally share my understanding. Sometimes debates lead to questions I can't immediately answer which uncovers gaps in my knowledge and points me in a direction of study.


    As far as Dennis Tate (lolz). He is a very nice guy, but (in the nicest way I can possibly say this) he is "extremely enthusiastic" and can, at times be a bit strange. While I do converse with him, I think a lot of what he says is bat$#@! crazy and I've corrected him many times. He is definitely a fan, but I try not to encourage him. He promotes several people for office. His latest is Ophra and me in 2020. Between you and I, I really don't want another celebrity in office, well maybe George Clooney. Hahaha, just kidding, but I did like his character in the "Ides Of March".


    Anyway, back to Dennis, I'm not affiliated with him nor am I running for Vice President as he promotes. I told him in several private messages if I were going to engage in politics I'd start right here in my hometown.


    As far as Steve Grumbine and the interview I did on his Progressives channel. I agreed to do that interview which was fun (though I thought I was HORRIBLE), but I am critical of Steves approach and have told him that on several occasions. Progressives tend to have a tax and spend mentality (the deficit "doves"), which I see as a mistake and I was given a chance to discuss it. Maybe a conservative group will invite me on someday and I can explain why I think deficit hawks (decrease taxes and decrease spending) are just as wrong as the doves (increase taxes increase spending), well, each of them has it half right....


    While Steve is reasonably informed with respect to economics, his approach is far too aggressive and will fail to reach the goals he sets for himself as a Progressive because he really isn't talking to people, rather he uses incendiary and inflammatory language to further his Progressive ideas.


    I don't consider myself a Progressive but I do agree with some of the ideas they share, but in the same sense, there are Libertarian ideas I share, but in both cases, it really depends on what we're talking about.

    I belong to this Facebook group - Libertarians + MMT https://www.facebook.com/groups/1884178271833892/


    At the end of the day, my "agenda" is just to share what I know and subject my ideas to criticism. No shortage of either here.


    See the thing is, I think that people fail to understand the truth about fiat money and as a result, they cannot critically evaluate it. People assume that my attempt to correct the record means that I support fiat. The truth is that I'm not saying that fiat is the system that we should be using, just that their criticisms about it are incorrect.


    You may have seen my conversation with Zippy. While there may be things we agree on, my perception of his mistakes about banks is common. So I am engaging in conversation to see if I can correct him on how I believe the system works.


    Quote Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
    I think the questions are important because it speaks of trust. I see trust as being part of this issue. An example would be the aforementioned discussion between you and Devil21 on the difference between getting credit versus creating your own credit.


    I trust what @devil21 says, although I don't always understand what he is talking about. The same with @acptulsa. That's why I think this could be a good discussion. I don't really have a problem with your posting here because it doesn't look to me (so far) like you're paid to post. Some might not care what I think because I'm just some guy on the internet; however, you might care what people think because you're, of course, trying to reach people with some kind of message.

    Let's be honest, we all have a message we want to share, the real question is our motivations.


    While we may violently disagree about what we believe I think that people like you are doing what they feel is best for this country (as am I). My success rate in debates with people is miserable (very few people are introspective enough to admit their wrong) I have convinced a few people directly and many people have communicated with me directly out of the public eye. It's my hope that I get others to call into question their own ideas and will seek out more information and learn on their own.


    I used to be more heavily involved in debating politics, but I soon learned that anything that is worth doing takes the money and if you don't understand the system of money, you can't, in good conscience advocate for anything because someone, sooner or later will pull out the ace and ask "how are you going to pay for that?". So I set out in 2003 to learn more about the economy and how it works. I was quite taken with Bill Still for quite some time. Someone I suspect you'd agree with as he is incredibly critical of the Fed and did a documentary called "Jekyll Island: The Truth Behind the Federal Reserve"


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SshQ5PmKKJs


    I was quite taken by his explanations initially but never satisfied to sit in echo chambers my ideas were challenged by a chartalist. I found the chartalist view a better explanation relying less on innuendo and correlation and fear tactics and better supported by the evidence. Most of the Anti-Fed video's are ominus doom and gloom video's trying to scare the crap out of people (though in fairness all sides engage in fear tactics).


    I've had private discussions with Mr. Still (which unfortunately were deleted when YouTube stopped private messaging between YT'ers) or I'd be happy to share. Suffice it to say, he didn't like my challenges to his assertions and soon became frustrated with my questions.


    I also challenged Mike Maloney the creator of the "Hidden Secrets of Money" series several times in the comments of his video's, but alas he has never responded.


    https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...y=mike+maloney


    Mike has created a channel with top-notch production value, but the information he gives is based on an outdated understanding of money. I have had quite a few conversations in the comments sections of his vids.


    Quote Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
    I always filter what someone says through a lens of trust. ZippyJuan and TheCount are paid to post here. They converse about economics, but what they say is met with skepticism because of their motivations. There is a good reason why they are not trusted. It really doesn't matter how much they "know." In other words, it's not what they post, but why they post it. I'm not going to forever listen with bated breath to someone whose purpose is to undermine.

    $#@!, if I got paid to post I'd be making bank! Sign me up!


    Seriously, I just what I learn and expose it to the light of the evidence I can uncover.


    Quote Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
    So, I want to know why someone speaks. Are they trying to persuade me? Are they trying to inform me? If so, then why? Maybe they just like to mix it up because it has some personal or ego appeal. That's fine.

    [I'd be lying if I said it doesn't feel good to have knowledge and anyone who says that it doesn't I'd call a lier. But I earned this knowledge. Currently, there are over 400 saved links to information in my browser alone. I've read several books by authors including Walter Bagehot, Adam Smith, Hyman Minsky and Thomas Sowell just to name a few.


    Quote Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
    Applied Economics: I think it's been a decent and civil discussion so far. These discussions are good because I have to work extra hard to wrap my head around some economic concepts. I would like to hear from Devil21, ACPTulsa, or others on this issue.

    I just hope they do it here in the forum, rather than spamming comments in the Rep section
    Last edited by econ4every1; 04-16-2018 at 12:13 PM.

  25. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    Feel free to find a forum that is more suitable to your tastes. I don't expect you'll receive a much warmer response from others, either.

    If you truly think that mentioning that almost every country is controlled by a Rothschild central bank is "conspiracy theory" then you're either a shill or still much less educated than your college econ classes have led you to believe.
    Toche my friend.

  26. #25

    Default

    @NorthCarolinaLiberty


    I can't make Devil21 debate me, but I will address his insinuation for your sake (as you said you were interested and I suspect you might want an answer to this point of debate) in the context of the conversation you started by asking me questions.


    The Rothschilds may at one time had the kinds of influence on the banking system as is alleged by most Fed haters. I won't confirm or deny that as I wouldn't have claimed to have spent a lot of time trying to find evidence that confirms or disputes that claim. However, given the fact that banks did lend money to governments (unlike today) it would not surprise me to learn that at least some of what is insinuated is true.


    What I do know is that the insinuation of the Rothschilds connection to the banks is that they have control over our government because they lend money to it.


    This is patently false and is based on a misunderstanding of how money is created today. If you want me to explain why it will take some time, patience and an attempt at understanding. It's not "hard" to understand in the sense that there is complex math or some "secret sauce". I won't point to a situation and say, "see what other explanation is there!".

    No, the hardest part of understanding banking IMO is to remember that every single point of view has an opposite. That debts are incomes, that liabilities are assets and that one entities budget deficits are other entities budget surpluses.


    Nathan Rothschild is quoted as saying something like,

    "He who controls the issuance of money controls the government".

    I believe the true and full original quote from 1815 is:

    "I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls the British money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply."


    Now again, I don't dispute that was true then, I do however dispute that's how things work today. I don't have to know if it was true then (because I'm not claiming to know what happened then), all I have to know is if it's still true by understanding how the government issues money today.

    But again, the explanation requires that I share ideas around exogenous and endogenous money. This requires that we discuss how banks create money, something that this group has a decent understanding of since Austrians generally have it right. They point out that money is created as credit rather than banks lending money they have. The problem is that most people who believe in the Austrian explanation don't understand the full accounting of cause and effect and it leads them to some erroneous conclusions.


    Here is something you might find some interest in.


    There is a debate between Warren Mosler (a supporter of MMT) and Dr. Robert Murphy a Professor of Austrian Economics that you might want to watch if you are really interested. I'd be happy to argue from the MMT point of view if you (or anyone else) have any questions after watching.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUTL...utu.be&t=4m38s


    I should note though, the first question the moderator asks is what policies would each person support. Warren goes first and he lays out several policies he'd support based on his understanding of the economy. I wish he had pointed out that MMT as a discipline does NOT PROMOTE ANY POLICY. It's important to remember that our beliefs inform our actions. That is to say, if you believe something is true, you make decisions based on the truth of that thing. For instance, if you are told that cell phones are bad for children, the information that lends evidence to that position does not advocate what should be done about it. However, people that believe that study might. I hope that makes sense.

    Unfortunately, Dr. Murphy doesn't really address a lot of What Warren Mosler says, several times he concedes Mr. Mosler's point. He simply states that even if the economy works like Mr. Mosler claims Austrians don't think it should work that way. And that's a fine argument as long as you understand how the economy works today is generally misunderstood by most amateur Austrian economists. policy prescriptions.

    Unfortunately, that leads us down an entirely different rabbit hole, which I'll talk about in a follow up depending on your level of interest.

    MMT as a discipline make NO prescriptive recommendations, however, people that believe it's a good ex-plenati0on for how things work generally support similar policy perscriptions.

  27. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by econ4every1 View Post
    [most of your post]
    Okay, fair enough.



    $#@!, if I got paid to post I'd be making bank! Sign me up!


    Seriously,...

    I know you're joking, but the paid trolls are exactly why so many people like you are met with skepticism. If you were paid, then you would follow the template of these dirtbags. If you want to (sort of) be entertained on a non-economics topic, then check the link in my sig line. It takes about 60 seconds to read. I could be wrong on some things, but I don't think I'm wrong.




    Here is something you might find some interest in.
    Thanks, but I'll pass. I'm more interested in practical application than theory. For example, there are people who'd be happy to see cash disappear in this world. That's because they can make more money with everyone using credit cards. Some of these people push to have statutes and regulations that weaken cash. An example is the SARS (suspicious activity reports) threshold getting lower. I like using cash--as much as I want. Eliminating that in favor of credit cards is done by manipulative scumbags who lobby for such things.
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    which one of yall fuckers wrote the "ron paul" racist news letters
    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    Zippy's posts are a great contribution.




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members

  28. #27

    Default

    @econ4every1

    Since you claimed in a post above that banks don't lend money to governments I have one simple question to you. If you know the answer it should prove your level of actual understanding of the current debt money system and that you're not just a fresh Economics graduate from college regurgitating theory from textbooks.

    Can you explain to us how federal debt like Treasury bonds are created?
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    The entire internet is the domain of paid shills and bots. If you don't know this by now....

    Israel, under control of the Crown and, ultimately, the Vatican, own the USA. If you don't know this by now....

    Talk to people about liberty. You won't find it on websites, you won't find it in politicians.

    Visiting the Outer Banks of NC?
    Outer Banks NC House Boat Rentals

  29. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    @econ4every1

    Since you claimed in a post above that banks don't lend money to governments
    That is correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    I have one simple question to you.
    I cast doubt on anyone that believes that any question that surrounds Treasury operation as "simple".

    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    If you know the answer it should prove your level of actual understanding of the current debt money system and that you're not just a fresh Economics graduate from college regurgitating theory from textbooks.
    You mean, if I answer in the way you believe things work.

    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    Can you explain to us how federal debt like Treasury bonds are created?
    I don't want to deflect from the question, so I'll answer it, but I think, and I could be wrong because you didn't really elaborate enough with what I suspect is an attempt at a "gotcha" kind of question, but you didn't elaborate on why this matters.

    So, since I'm going to answer your question, I'd ask that you answer the following question when you follow up. The correct answer to this question, if I understand the unspoken assertion in the question you've asked me, undermines your question.

    Can the government spend US dollars without selling a Treasury first?

    Moving on:

    You weren't very specific in what specifically you wanted. I'll start at a high level.


    When the government sells bonds, private banks buy them by offering reserves they hold at the central bank. The Federal Reserve (in the US) debits the buying bank’s reserve deposits and credits the bank’s account with Treasury securities. Rather than seeing this as borrowing by the Treasury, it is more akin to shifting deposits out of a checking account and into a saving account in order to earn more interest. And, indeed, treasury securities really are nothing more than a saving account at the Fed that pay more interest than do reserve deposits (bank “checking accounts”) at the Fed.

    This affects the economy because it removes dollar reserves from private banks thereby increasing the scarcity of reserves. Since dollar reserves are required when banks make loans when Treasuries are sold the scarcity of reserves increases and this, in turn, increases the cost of borrowing.

    Now if you are asking more than that, please be more specific.

  30. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by econ4every1 View Post
    When the government sells bonds, private banks buy them by offering reserves they hold at the central bank. The Federal Reserve (in the US) debits the buying bank’s reserve deposits and credits the bank’s account with Treasury securities. Rather than seeing this as borrowing by the Treasury, it is more akin to shifting deposits out of a checking account and into a saving account in order to earn more interest. And, indeed, treasury securities really are nothing more than a saving account at the Fed that pay more interest than do reserve deposits (bank “checking accounts”) at the Fed.
    So, you're saying the banks don't loan the government money, the government sells banks its debt.

    Now, tell us how that doesn't, as a purely practical matter, amount to splitting hairs.

    Splitting hairs is a wonderful thing. You aren't lying. But the casual observer can sure look at your statement, and come away believing something that isn't true. That sure is handy, isn't it?
    Last edited by acptulsa; 04-17-2018 at 01:42 PM.
    'It ain't what we don't know that hurts us, it's what we "know" that ain't so.'--Will Rogers

    'I prefer someone who burns the flag and then wraps themselves up in the Constitution over someone who burns the Constitution and then wraps themselves up in the flag.'--Molly Ivins

  31. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    So, you're saying the banks don't loan the government money, the government sells banks its debt.

    Now, tell us how that doesn't, as a purely practical matter, amount to splitting hairs.

    Splitting hairs is a wonderful thing. You aren't lying. But the casual observer can sure look at your statement, and come away believing something that isn't true. That sure is handy, isn't it?
    Was I wrong? Please explain how.

    Splitting hairs? No, I just gave an accurate explanation of how the system works.

    Can you answer the question.....

    "Can the government spend US dollars without selling a Treasury first?"

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast





Similar Threads

  1. Iceland bankers arrested - US bankers, not yet :(
    By tommy949 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-28-2012, 09:21 AM
  2. Iceland bankers arrested - US bankers, not yet :(
    By tommy949 in forum Ron Paul Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-27-2012, 07:49 PM
  3. It's the Bankers or Us
    By ericsnow in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-02-2010, 01:25 PM
  4. Bailouts: Chinese Bankers Make U.S. Bankers Look Like Prudent Hayekians
    By clb09 in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 07-01-2009, 05:47 AM
  5. Even Bankers Don't Like It!
    By inibo in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-29-2008, 12:23 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •