Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.The biggest scam ever perpetrated: The Federal Reserve Act watch!
video.google.com — Many Americans will be shocked to discover that the principle business of the Fed is to print money from nothing, lend it to the U.S. government and charge interest on these loans. Who keeps the interest?
scamerica- 2318 diggs
- digg it
- Cryptocracy, on 08/17/2008, -29/+216abolish the FED!! hell, make Fractional Reserve Banking illegal too.
- Locke2053, on 03/04/2008, -39/+19Yeah, then we could experience the advanced economic prosperity common in fundamentalist Muslim countries where banking is prohibited by Sharia law.
I'm tired of seeing these stupid ads for precious metals on the front page of digg. Metals, like money, only have the value we assign to them.- gabeh73, on 03/04/2008, -5/+38You don't know what your talking about Locke. Private property rights and a relatively stable currency made this country the richest in the world. The country was still strong but grew at a slower rate after eh Fed was created. Now that private property rights have been degraded for 100 years we are slwoing to negative real growth. Barbaric fundamentalist countries have nothing to do with it, unless you mean that the fed created dollars went towards destabilizing muslim coutnries to keep the balance of power steady over there.
- ennTOXX, on 03/04/2008, -0/+6When will people understand, the word FEDERAL in Federal Reserve does not mean it is a part of our Federal Government. No more Federal than McDonalds is... :||
- Elephant789, on 03/04/2008, -0/+6I think the quote goes as this: "When will people understand, the word FEDERAL in Federal Reserve does not mean it is a part of our Federal Government. No more Federal than" Federal Express.
- ennTOXX, on 03/04/2008, -0/+6When will people understand, the word FEDERAL in Federal Reserve does not mean it is a part of our Federal Government. No more Federal than McDonalds is... :||
- slezzzter, on 03/04/2008, -12/+4Agreed on comment 2. We might as well back our currency on Picassos or Monets as on rocks.
@gabeh: Also correct. Ultimately, property rights are key to a stable capitalist economy. - robbielaney, on 03/04/2008, -0/+5Our paper money could fluctuate with time. If the U.S. for example lost a great deal of its wealth (citizens that is . . . the country is in debt up to its eyeballs), paper money from the U.S. would be useless. Silver and Gold though are valuable because they are desirable when paper is not involved. Other countries that aren't in the preassumed predicament of the U.S. would still value this Silver and Gold. Does that make sense? That is why it is important to go to a different currency system.
- bc289, on 03/04/2008, -3/+0The value of metals fluctuate as well. As the economy grows, if your money supply does not, then you'll experience deflation (your money will appreciate in value over time), which just about every economist says is worse than inflation. It's worse because it gives you an incentive to SAVE your money rather than to spend it, which would then slow economic growth since no one is spending their money. The value of metals fluctuate as well, there is no such thing as the value of currency just staying static over time.
- ButterBuddha, on 03/05/2008, -0/+3"every economist" .....who?
if appreciation = more buying power .... people would be spending money like crazy! - bc289, on 03/10/2008, -1/+0why don't you bother to look it up? Well for one, I'll name my professor who taught me this, William Nordhaus. Samuelson also supports this claim, based on his book that he wrote with Nordhaus in intro to macroeconomics. What you say is just not true.
- bc289, on 03/10/2008, -1/+0let me help you out. look up deflationary spiral and Keynesian economics.
Something tells me your 5 minutes of contemplating on the effects of deflation does not hold up to general economic thinking. Something tells me...
- ButterBuddha, on 03/05/2008, -0/+3"every economist" .....who?
- bc289, on 03/04/2008, -3/+0The value of metals fluctuate as well. As the economy grows, if your money supply does not, then you'll experience deflation (your money will appreciate in value over time), which just about every economist says is worse than inflation. It's worse because it gives you an incentive to SAVE your money rather than to spend it, which would then slow economic growth since no one is spending their money. The value of metals fluctuate as well, there is no such thing as the value of currency just staying static over time.
- gabeh73, on 03/04/2008, -5/+38You don't know what your talking about Locke. Private property rights and a relatively stable currency made this country the richest in the world. The country was still strong but grew at a slower rate after eh Fed was created. Now that private property rights have been degraded for 100 years we are slwoing to negative real growth. Barbaric fundamentalist countries have nothing to do with it, unless you mean that the fed created dollars went towards destabilizing muslim coutnries to keep the balance of power steady over there.
- thatspsychotic, on 03/04/2008, -42/+19Oh come on. Anyone who's taken even introductory Macroeconomics should understand how the Federal Reserve works and why it's necessary.
- noseeme, on 03/04/2008, -13/+17Let them live out their little fantasy for now, they are genuinely enjoying it.
- spyd3rweb, on 03/04/2008, -7/+27You think they'd teach something contrary to establishment thinking in state run school?
- trippinlikegod, on 03/04/2008, -8/+35That's interesting seeing as this country got along just fine for more than one hundred years without the Federal Reserve. Our founding fathers broke free from England partly because they were unwilling to borrow money from the Bank of England at interest to supply their local currency and now it seems we have spit on the graves of those men and adopted the same foolish system they fought so hard to protect us from.
- rlbond86, on 03/04/2008, -26/+2And then, after Andrew Jackson abolished the Second National Bank, all hell broke loose. If you want to go back the the 18th century be my guest, but things don't work that way anymore.
- Stochio, on 03/04/2008, -3/+7That's hardly an argument. That's like saying a drug addict shouldn't work to get off drugs because he might have an adverse reaction. And if he does have a hard time say "See, I told you to keep taking heroin." Such a concept of cause and effect is short in maturity and simplistic in scope.
- rlbond86, on 03/04/2008, -26/+2And then, after Andrew Jackson abolished the Second National Bank, all hell broke loose. If you want to go back the the 18th century be my guest, but things don't work that way anymore.
- midbc, on 03/04/2008, -0/+22and the whole system is running like a well oiled machine right now right?
- trumpydumpy, on 03/04/2008, -2/+13"Oh come on. Anyone who's taken even introductory Macroeconomics should understand how the Federal Reserve works and why it's necessary."
The question is not whether the Federal Reserve is necessary for our economy or not, as it obviously isn't. It is whether or not we should allow these thugs to continue raping this world of it's dignity.- nicholai, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1I think most of the people that defend the fed are paid trolls. I don't see any other reason for why they would spew this mind numbing propaganda.
- roberts1111, on 03/04/2008, -9/+3If you think the economy is doing bad right now.. you can only begin to imagine what the economy would be like if they really decided to abolish the fed. The market would truly crash and burn with out an independent entity that regulates our monitory policy. This is because face it, a large part of our economy is controlled by traders and other financial interests. Removing the Fed from power would be impossible because the leaders know what would happen to the economy if Fed is abolished. The same people who have called for the slaughter of the Fed would come around blame the leaders for the lack of greater foresight in the wake of the ensuing economic disaster.
There is a reason for the Fed to exist. Without the Fed, we would of had a significantly slower growth rate over the past Century. It only feels bad when we experience a economical downturn and are also facing longer term economical challenges such as the ever soaring national debt. However, to blame either of those problems on the Fed is ignorant.
The Fed may have failed to act sooner to avoid the sub-prime mortgage mess, but without the Fed, do you honestly think that the government would do a better job of managing our money? Do you really think the masses are capable of making decisions that would benefit the future generations while sacrificing their own interests? What this government have done to our national debt would be felt for generations to come, and guess what, they are not going to care because they are going to out of power soon. Do you really think that the government would not simply print more money to finance this war which would further devaluate our currency?
What the Fed does is try to create policy that improve the long term prospects. To do that, they are often forced to sacrifice the short term for long term gain. This is the reason that the Fed board members are elected but cannot be demoted. This way they don't have to worry about getting fired because of the anger from the masses. Although the Fed has these long term interests in mind, the scope of its authority are limited to only monitory policy, and it can not control the poor decisions made by the government. What it can do is punish the government for its poor decisions indirectly by modifying its monitory policy.
The Fed is not perfect, however, because economics is not a perfect science. The fact is that the Fed failed to identify the scope and impact of the subprime crisis early enough; however, it many times has helped to resolve many other major economic crisis, you just don't hear about them because they never got to the point where it has significantly affected you.
You may interpret their recent actions to reduce interest rates as bailing out the criminals who have profited from subprime at the expense of millions of average Americans. That is not true, the Fed is reducing the rates because it is doing its best to protect the average Americans from losing more than they already have, the unfortunate side effect maybe that some of those crooks are bailed out.- Kontra8, on 03/05/2008, -0/+2You wrote so much but as soon as i read "would of" i skipped everything else. Pitty...
- nicholai, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1Roberts, I think you missed the entire point. The federal reserve is a private bank for profit. Why should we pay interest on money printed by the fed when we could have the government print the money itself? We have an illegal income tax to simply pay off the fed.
- Kontra8, on 03/05/2008, -0/+2You wrote so much but as soon as i read "would of" i skipped everything else. Pitty...
- pigfister, on 03/04/2008, -6/+29how would the military industrial complex work without all your taxes being duped from u?
http://video.google.co.uk/url?docid=-5193534124922 ...
http://video.google.co.uk/url?docid=-8181559577373 ...- ayeroxor, on 03/04/2008, -15/+16Those could be good links. I don't care. Buried for using the letter u as a word. Makes you seem like a 12-year-old, and I don't want the economic opinions of 12-year-olds.
- gabeh73, on 03/04/2008, -15/+15funny, YOUR logic makes you look like a 8 year old. U is a common time saving substitution in modern casual communications. If you want grammar rule obedience then check out the NY Times and buy 30 year government bonds as they recommend. Good luck in your retirement.
- Patrikimo, on 03/04/2008, -6/+13Yes because saving 2/10s of a second is really worth looking like a moron... If you want to be taken seriously, spell check, use correct grammar, and don't use text messaging abbreviations. Making a point is at least in part about showing people you're intelligent enough to take your point seriously.
- zeromous, on 03/04/2008, -7/+6Patrikimo,
No, you are just a language snob. Get over yourself before engaging in honest discourse.
The real truth here is that you have nothing to say, but can't get past your own ego long enough to move along and say nothing. Instead you choose to dismiss the opinions of your opponent on a technicality which no one actually cares about. That is, except for you, measuring your own self-worth by your impeccable attention to detail rather than your actual intelligence. - cotaskmemalloc, on 03/04/2008, -7/+3Gabeh73, you're an idiot. So are you zeromous.
- zeromous, on 03/04/2008, -5/+6Patrikimo:
Truth hurts, I know.. the funny thing is, how much information you miss out on, simply because you are so judgmental. It's quite a paradox being so judgmental, but actually such that you have less information to draw on as a result. - zeromous, on 03/04/2008, -5/+4Why is that, because I don't exclude people based on the TIME THEY TAKE TO COMMUNICATE AN OPINION ON DIGG?
I mean, this isn't oxford. Inflation is a bitch. - daborg, on 03/04/2008, -2/+2This is not a casual subject.
- zeromous, on 03/04/2008, -3/+4Hah comon bring it digg down brigade!
OMFG someone spoke in short form. Quickly, to the click-mobile! Mobilize to quash any acceptance of english shorthand, lest the world be doomed. ROFL I'm seriously dying of laughter here in my cube. Hah Anyone seen Ron Paul around here? Oh man, I should get the death penalty for using the word 'cube' instead of cubicle!
You guys seriously FAIL @ LIFE - zeromous, on 03/04/2008, -0/+3daborg: I'd say discussion Economics on Digg.com is about as casual as it gets.
See my post about your inflated egos.
- Darksaber11, on 03/04/2008, -3/+10While you are being a biased prick, I understand where you're coming from. People need to realize that your reaction is quite typical of the kind of reaction that using "u" as a word provokes. If you want people to care what you say, take the time to write it properly, or at least closer to properly than using "u" puts you.
- zeromous, on 03/04/2008, -3/+3closer to properly?
have much more advise on how to conduct languages? - daborg, on 03/04/2008, -4/+1"have much more advise on how to conduct languages?"
Start sentences with a capital letter. - zeromous, on 03/04/2008, -2/+4Daborg: Hahahah, if those were complete sentences! Refer to your grammar school lessons, child.
Also, you may have noticed I was mocking his own expert usage. - daborg, on 03/04/2008, -4/+1...
- zeromous, on 03/04/2008, -3/+3closer to properly?
- zeromous, on 03/04/2008, -2/+4Wow, see my comment to Patrikimo. You are likely worse than he is. As an reasonably intelligent wordsmith, and occasionally lazy typist, I hate language snobs. What a dick U are.
- nicholai, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1Grammar nazis should not be using sites like digg.
- zeromous, on 03/04/2008, -0/+3I buried you due to your poor punctuation. How many errors can you grammar-nazis find? In just a glance, I see three.
"Those could be good links. I don't care. Buried for using the letter u as a word. Makes you seem like a 12-year-old, and I don't want the economic opinions of 12-year-olds."- nicholai, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1This is why I see grammar nazis as such a joke. They usually make several errors in their own posts.
- Kontra8, on 03/05/2008, -0/+3I find u substitue ok because it's used on purpose to save time typing while "would of" and the rest...
- gabeh73, on 03/04/2008, -15/+15funny, YOUR logic makes you look like a 8 year old. U is a common time saving substitution in modern casual communications. If you want grammar rule obedience then check out the NY Times and buy 30 year government bonds as they recommend. Good luck in your retirement.
- ayeroxor, on 03/04/2008, -15/+16Those could be good links. I don't care. Buried for using the letter u as a word. Makes you seem like a 12-year-old, and I don't want the economic opinions of 12-year-olds.
- Tenetri, on 03/04/2008, -8/+40Obama wont do this. He simply wont.
You all know the only person who would...- RandomGuySteve, on 03/04/2008, -11/+15Of course, but Andrew Jackson's been dead for a good long while.
- Bravesguy18, on 03/04/2008, -1/+21We can rebuild him...
- didiman, on 03/04/2008, -7/+7Typical digger's thought progression: federal reserve -> ahhhhhh -> ron paul -> ahhhhhh -> gold standard -> ahhhhh -> head explodes
- nicholai, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1You're doing it wrong
- RandomGuySteve, on 03/04/2008, -11/+15Of course, but Andrew Jackson's been dead for a good long while.
- robbinzo, on 03/04/2008, -0/+12here's another good resource
http://digg.com/business_finance/Money_as_Debt_9 - NSResponder, on 03/04/2008, -3/+16Fractional reserve banking isn't intrinsically dangerous, as long as banks are allowed to go out of business if they ***** it up.
-jcr- odigity, on 03/04/2008, -0/+8As long as the bank is only lending money it has, and not fabricating money out of thin air, you're good. Banks should not have a monopoly on printing money. Unless I get to be a bank, too.
- robbinzo, on 03/09/2008, -0/+4Fractional Reserve banking is a way the banks can loan out more money than they actually have. Of course it's wrong. They create money but this does not help the people, they do no work to accomplish it, they are PARASITES on humanity.
- nicholai, on 03/10/2008, -0/+2It wouldn't really be a problem if the government stayed out of the issue.
- neil1492, on 03/04/2008, -9/+8So many diggers haven't taken Econ 101. I guess that shows how uneducated our country is....
- Marc39, on 03/04/2008, -3/+15Many of us have taken econ 101. You can tell us certain facts and then test us afterwards to see if we remembers those facts. Economic theories are just that; theories. They are not facts like 2+2=4.
For example, you can be told about usury laws. The law states you can legally charge "x" amount of interest. That is a fact but doesn't change the fact that it's an arbitrary number that most of us had NO say in creating. Some think 5% is the highest that should be allowed while others might think ANY amount is fair.
The existence of the Federal Reserve is an opinion of the powers that be. To believe it's existence is as fundamental to economics as oxygen is to a human being is just plain ignorance.- coustoe, on 03/04/2008, -7/+1you've taken econ 101 but you obviously failed. You don't even understand the concepts of supply demand and oppurtunity cost in determining interest rates.
Also you mustive fell asleep when they talked about liquidity, lender of last resort and a well ordered market.
Dumbass- Marc39, on 03/05/2008, -0/+6You throw out some simple economic concepts that we ALL understand yet you lacked to explain why you believe the FED is necessary. And topped it off with a derogatory insult. Bravo!
Speaking of falling asleep, you must have taken quite a few naps during your history classes as well as sleeping through the nightly news. Wall St. is tanking and it's not just a simple "correction". The national debt is that big white elephant in the room you refuse to acknowledge because you've been lulled to sleep by Fox News and President Dick Cheney(sic).
- Marc39, on 03/05/2008, -0/+6You throw out some simple economic concepts that we ALL understand yet you lacked to explain why you believe the FED is necessary. And topped it off with a derogatory insult. Bravo!
- coustoe, on 03/04/2008, -7/+1you've taken econ 101 but you obviously failed. You don't even understand the concepts of supply demand and oppurtunity cost in determining interest rates.
- odigity, on 03/04/2008, -2/+8I've taken Econ 101 (Macro and Micro). Econ 101 *is* the problem. Keynesian economics is the only school of econ taught in most American schools (high school and up), and it's wrong. It's government propaganda. The Austrian school is more correct. But it is hardly surprising that a government would choose to promote the school of econ that teaches that it is right and proper for government to exert so much control over the economy (like controlling the money supply).
- bc289, on 03/04/2008, -1/+1who said it was wrong? it's the field that has the most academic support. it's true that just because a theory has the most support does not mean it's true. But in academics, it usually means it has the most evidence backing it up. Austrian school is more correct? Where do you get this? Austrian school doesn't even use econometrics to back up what it says. Without that, you can never know how correct it is.
- Marc39, on 03/04/2008, -3/+15Many of us have taken econ 101. You can tell us certain facts and then test us afterwards to see if we remembers those facts. Economic theories are just that; theories. They are not facts like 2+2=4.
- mikesbaker, on 03/04/2008, -0/+3OMG I've leaped into the body of Alan Greenspan and Ziggy has no idea what I am supposed to be doing
- rromanchuk, on 03/04/2008, -0/+3A timeline of latest federal reserve actions, 90% from federalreserve.gov
http://apps.facebook.com/_dipity_/timeline/dt*c548 ... - signal15, on 03/04/2008, -0/+2So, how does this compare to the EU, China, Russia, etc? Do they have a similar system, or are their currencies backed by something?
- coustoe, on 03/04/2008, -2/+2No, Every other central bank serves the same function as the Federal Reserve system which basically is to ensure a well ordered market by providing liquidity.
The United States has gone through periods where there was no central bank, the result were tremendous economic upheaval and misery - patch6, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2Here's Jim Rogers suggesting that the Federal Reserve be abolished, during a CNN spot:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-604652040 ...
A billionaire's perspective on it, for a change.
- Locke2053, on 03/04/2008, -39/+19Yeah, then we could experience the advanced economic prosperity common in fundamentalist Muslim countries where banking is prohibited by Sharia law.
- VikingoTJ, on 03/04/2008, -10/+86What ever happened to the Andrew Jacksons in the Democratic Party? It is ironic that today's Andrew Jackson is a Republican.
- rpi22, on 03/04/2008, -2/+69What's really ironic is that they put Andrew Jackson on the $20 Federal Reserve note...
- 25mL, on 03/04/2008, -2/+33More like the Feds did that to mock our departed Presidents who once stood against them.
- PeppermintPig, on 03/16/2008, -0/+1Lincoln was wary of the bankers, despite being an authoritarian ***** who chose bloody war to solve the problems of the states. He created the greenback and it originally had value backing, and I'm guessing the original bill with Jackson's face on it was a value-backed note, but we've since seen the currency hijacked, while remaining visibly similar. That would be a deception.
- cygnus2112, on 03/04/2008, -34/+4You're right. All America needs is another Democratic President who wants to drive out all the dark skinned people from United States property.
Wait ...- VikingoTJ, on 03/04/2008, -3/+15I am referring to fiscal policy.
- cygnus2112, on 03/04/2008, -7/+4I dunno.. if I were to wish a hero to return to take on the Federal Reserve, I'd pick someone other than a racist genocidal murderer. But hey, that's just me.
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." - Thomas Jefferson- PeppermintPig, on 03/16/2008, -0/+1Jefferson will do.
Jackson and Lincoln, no thanks.
:)
- PeppermintPig, on 03/16/2008, -0/+1Jefferson will do.
- VikingoTJ, on 03/04/2008, -1/+9Thomas Jefferson would be better as an all around good one, you are right. I was referring to just Jackson's monetary policy. But it seemed like you were just trying to troll until you brought Jefferson up.
- cygnus2112, on 03/04/2008, -0/+7That's cool bro. I should have been more upfront about why I detest Jackson. Surely, his stance against the central bank was spot on. But I cannot forgive his other policies.
- VikingoTJ, on 03/04/2008, -0/+9Jackson did suck with individual rights. Thomas Jefferson freed his slaves and repented for his involvement in it. I don't ever remember seeing anything about Thomas Jefferson wanting to commit genocide against the Indians either.
- cygnus2112, on 03/04/2008, -7/+4I dunno.. if I were to wish a hero to return to take on the Federal Reserve, I'd pick someone other than a racist genocidal murderer. But hey, that's just me.
- chase001, on 03/04/2008, -7/+2Drive them out or impregnate them?
- supremebeing18, on 03/04/2008, -0/+1What?
- chase001, on 03/05/2008, -1/+1Thomas Jefferson knocked up Sally Hemmings and kept his own children as slaves.
- supremebeing18, on 03/04/2008, -0/+1What?
- VikingoTJ, on 03/04/2008, -3/+15I am referring to fiscal policy.
- PolishLogic, on 03/04/2008, -1/+27Not really. If you look at political history, you'll see that somewhere around the late 1800's the party ideologies between Republican and Democrat essentially flip-flopped. Although considering the spending and governmental habits of today's Republicans, I'd say classic conservatism is dead, regardless.
- DanOnTheMoon, on 03/04/2008, -8/+28Heh, except for the upcoming wave of Ron Paul Republicans. Socially libertarian, economically conservative/libertarian, anti-authoritarian semi-nationalist Republicans are the way of the future. I can't wait until the Bushes, Rockefellers, Sensenbrenners and McCains are gone. It's going to be awesome.
- Shananra, on 03/04/2008, -0/+8And when do you think this is going to happen?
- Patrikimo, on 03/04/2008, -6/+6Explain to me how enabling states to integrate religion, deny gay rights, and abolish abortion is a socially libertarian view? If RP had his druthers then this is what would happen. In today's society, it is the states that are the ones we need to protection from in regards to social rights.
- odigity, on 03/04/2008, -1/+2You fail at understanding Federalism. I am a socially liberal fiscally conservative libertarian-minded person. I vote to protect gay rights and freedom of religion WITHIN my state. I simply disagree that the Federal government has the right to interfere. It's only purpose is really to protect against foreign invasion. Everything else can and should be handled by the states, which are sovereign, and in fact are the parties that FORMED the Federal government, and therefore are superior to it.
- covertbadger, on 03/05/2008, -0/+1"I am a socially liberal fiscally conservative libertarian-minded person. I vote to protect gay rights and freedom of religion WITHIN my state."
So you would be content if it were legal in 49 states to lynch gays and non-Christians, as long as it was illegal in YOUR state? Good grief, you're an *****.
- hermslice, on 03/04/2008, -0/+3Thank you for being smart!!!
- DanOnTheMoon, on 03/04/2008, -8/+28Heh, except for the upcoming wave of Ron Paul Republicans. Socially libertarian, economically conservative/libertarian, anti-authoritarian semi-nationalist Republicans are the way of the future. I can't wait until the Bushes, Rockefellers, Sensenbrenners and McCains are gone. It's going to be awesome.
- rpi22, on 03/04/2008, -2/+69What's really ironic is that they put Andrew Jackson on the $20 Federal Reserve note...
- aki009, on 03/04/2008, -74/+23I know that there are many who see it as fashionable to see the Fed as the source of many problems. Yes, they have created _some_ problems, but they also have _solved_ some much bigger ones. One of these problems was the fact that following the post-WW2 boom, the economy was being held back by the availability of capital, driven by the inability to increase money supply (i.e. theoretical dollar bills in the economy) at the same rate as new business and growth required them. If the US had not moved away from the gold-standard (which is what many complain about), we would likely not be having this electronic conversation right now, because the necessary succession of new industries and innovations over the past few decades would never have taken place due to a lack of funds.
I don't like it when the Fed makes a mistake in predicting demand, but at the same time I do see that their presence is necessary. As to the naysayers, may I just ask that you propose alternatives that work, as otherwise you might as well demand that we all start trading in buck skins again.- aki009, on 03/04/2008, -48/+12I take the buries without comment means that there are many who are unable to communicate why they don't agree with me. Might as well be complaining about the weather, guys.
- cashman57, on 03/04/2008, -9/+35Just because I buried it before I commented doesn't mean you were right or that I could not construct an argument, it simply means your post stinks and needs to be buried quick!
- gabeh73, on 03/04/2008, -3/+46I disagree with your lack of capital theory aki009. First you haev to udnerstand that capital is not fiat paper....capital is factories/equipment/universities etc. If we eliminated all US dolalrs tomorrow the Earth would have the same amount of capital. All the Federal Reserve did was allow more capital to be plundered by the government. The fed issued loans and decreased the value of millions of americans savings. Some of that capital was put to productive use, say in builing a Interstate highway system or a hydroelectric damn. It is difficult to conclude that said capital wouldn't have been better used by those who earend it...for tehir kids education/philanthropy/feeding their children/building homes/educating docotrs/opening businesses etc.
Most importantly the great majority of the capital the fed created and loaned to the governemnt was used TO DESTROY CAPITAL....fundiing WW1 this war destroyed tens of millions strong healthy intelligent young men and took many of hte most productive years of their lives. It also supplied bombs that were then literally exploded to destroy factories and homes...on top of all that it created the envionment neccesary to give rise to the Nazi's. It is difficult to overstate the damage to the Earths capital that the Fed created.
Coincidentally the people(Rockefellers,Morgans,Rothchilds) who pushed for the Fed made billions of loaning money to both sides of these wars in spite of the monumental damage doen to the average american.
Read the creature from jekylll Island and also read teh establishment friendly books by Chernow(on the Rockefellers,Morgans and Warburgs. Compare and contrast them intelligently. also read Philp Dru(the book by Mandell House)....you will see that the stated altruistic reasons for creatign the Federal Reserve are impossible and while the Jekyll Island story may be one-sided it si far more plausible than that pushed by the establishment.- aki009, on 03/04/2008, -7/+11I mentioned this in one of the other comments already, but it's worth repeating: I believe Alan Greenspan himself stated that "In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation."
- grrrrrrrrrrrrrr, on 03/04/2008, -2/+13Yeah he said that back in the seventies just as the gold standard was being abandoned...Why did he become the Godfather of Inflation through fiat Ponzi fractional lending then?
"The best plan is to profit by the folly of others."
~Pliny the Elder - gabeh73, on 03/04/2008, -1/+10I can only guess, but one quote is that he says he changed his mind...would love to have him involved in a real Q&A session about the topic...I personally think he has overcome with powerlust and kept making little exceptions to his principles until finally he was a different man altogether. I could be bought too I'm sure.
- grrrrrrrrrrrrrr, on 03/04/2008, -2/+13Yeah he said that back in the seventies just as the gold standard was being abandoned...Why did he become the Godfather of Inflation through fiat Ponzi fractional lending then?
- gabeh73, on 03/04/2008, -1/+12ya...glad you read that...he also refers to the welfare statist "shabby secret". But you do understand my opinion that the Fed doesn't and cannot create capital? They only make capital available to those who cannot(or will not) convince people to VOLUNTARILY loan capital. Instead they make it possible for plunderers to get captial at the expense fo those who naively trust teh governemnt is watching out for their savings account, when in fact they are being robbed blind. Do you still believe that the Fed just magically makes capital available?
- aki009, on 03/04/2008, -6/+14There might be a good reason why the US has one of the lowest savings rate in the industrialized world. It's not that higher savings rates in other countries are better, it's just that there people don't seem to have woken up to the reality of life, yet. Money is a medium of _exchange_, not a medium of long term _value_retention_. If you want to retain value, you need to exchange it to something that has lasting value. Buy a portion of a business (e.g. stocks), buy land, buy structures, buy stuff, buy commodities such as gold; but don't hold onto the scrip over long periods of time.
I believe me using the word capital created some confusion. The Fed doesn't create capital, but it creates a medium of exchange for purposes of allowing transactions between individuals without having to go back to commodities such as gold or the proverbial buck skin. The availability of that medium is regulated artificially, to maintain the value within a reasonably small range so that transactions can take place with a good expectation of fair value.
The whole point here is that there is not enough gold or buck skins or something else in the world to cover the number of transactions that are taking place in our economy (not to mention others), and hence trying value of transactions in such a commodity would make everything hostage to the speed at which we dig gold out of the ground or get bucks from the wild. Currency would increase in value simply because there wouldn't be enough of it to cover ordinary transactions. This in turn would motivate individuals to hold on to currency, as simply keeping it in your pocket would allow it to appreciate. And if enough people do that, there would be a problem for economic activity for the whole country.
One of the problems that we have is that the Fed insists on having a monopoly, with the kind of action we saw regarding the Liberty Dollar. Perhaps that issue could have been avoided by calling the coins Liberty Bucks or Liberty Ounces, or something. But calling it a dollar put them in the firing line of the monopolists.
Another problem is that people are not educated as to the basic premise of exchange medium vs. value retention medium (perhaps intentionally, or perhaps due to ignorance in the educational system). No wonder some get upset.- fyngyrz, on 03/04/2008, -5/+2No; what happens is that the amount of gold available at any one point is more valuable in weight per dollar terms. There's no "hostage" taking to the rate of recovery of gold (or any other commodity.) In a gold-base4d economy, there's no requirement that the dollar value of gold be fixed, in fact, that's a fine way to invest -- in a growing economy where gold value is increasing, you invest in.... gold.
- fyngyrz, on 03/04/2008, -5/+2No; what happens is that the amount of gold available at any one point is more valuable in weight per dollar terms. There's no "hostage" taking to the rate of recovery of gold (or any other commodity.) In a gold-base4d economy, there's no requirement that the dollar value of gold be fixed, in fact, that's a fine way to invest -- in a growing economy where gold value is increasing, you invest in.... gold.
- gabeh73, on 03/04/2008, -2/+7acutally agree with much of what you say here. However, I disagree about an important part. The quantity of gold is not a problem at all...sure if converted over now it would make gold prices rise to many thousand dolalrs per oz, but that isn't a big deal. The quantity of gold is totally ireeleveant as long as the governemtn can't just magically produce a 20% increase when tehy want to go to war or stiff social security recipients.
Just because the the fed wouldn't be making loans available to favored primary dealers doesn't mean people wouldn't be able to get loans from those who have earned capital. Yes prices of most goods would always be fallign as the gold quantity only expanded at 1% a year and productivity increased quicker, and yes this would induce many to hold onto their more stable gold backed currency, but that in itself would not withhold any real CAPITAL fromt eh market of those who wished to borrow money. When a old miser just put money bags under his bed, it doesn't make fewer steam shovels available to the public...it just reduces the total currency trying to bid up the prices of the CAPITAL. Your fears regarding this system are totally unfounded...as long as real economic growth is stronger then it will be(would have been) EASIER for a prospective small guy to ownership of the much sought after steam shovel(or whatever) he is seeking.
The fact that fed makes it possible to misdirect way way too many steam shovels to building war machines that in turn blow up other capital should make it clear that real economic growth would have been higher the last 100 years without a fiat/fractional reserve system, set yup to facilitate easy money for corrupt governemnts aroudn the world as opposed to intelligent hard working entrepreneurs.
- aki009, on 03/04/2008, -7/+11I mentioned this in one of the other comments already, but it's worth repeating: I believe Alan Greenspan himself stated that "In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation."
- grrrrrrrrrrrrrr, on 03/04/2008, -2/+11There was also an availability problem of capital during the Great Depression not to mention an availability of gold problem because of The Gold Confiscation Act which were the result of and necessitated by, respectively, whom?...that's right The Federal Reserve...I would have greater confidence in your monetary firefighters if their hoses weren't always dripping with gasoline...
- 6minuteabs, on 03/04/2008, -2/+3Don't take it personally aki. Somebody should put together a top 10 list of ignorant economic statements made on digg. One of my personal favorites was the thread about the stock market being solely responsible for Apple's share price dropping by > 40%. Say something about Ron Paul and they'll start loving you again.
- aki009, on 03/04/2008, -2/+1Thanks for the tip. I *love* Ron Paul. (Now waiting for the diggs to accumulate.)
- cashman57, on 03/04/2008, -8/+59They have yet to solve a problem. Their policies and directives are responsible for the decline of our standard of living. A dollar was worth 1/20 OZ. of gold when the federal reserve began their scam. An ounce of gold will hit $1,000.00 soon and you claim the fed solved a problem?
You really should think about it for a while because if you look at it the fact is the supply of money has NEVER been the problem and the post WW2 pumping of money into the system was to cover the COST of the war which is what happens in any war, we have the fed pumping money into the system and the standard of living of Americans drops.
The money in the bank loses value by the hour and you are on here trying to pretend THE FEDERAL RESERVE SOLVED A PROBLEM?????
I buried your comment for that assertion alone.
To assert that a money shortage was the problem after WW2 is laughable!!- aki009, on 03/04/2008, -29/+9Your argumentation -- unfortunately -- is not consistent with the facts. The gold standard was dropped (in part) as early as 1933, which was 8 YEARS BEFORE WW2 even began. Further, the amount of US dollars in circulation today, upwards of $7.3 trillion, could not be possibly covered by gold, as even if all the gold ever mined were totaled up, and valued -- for example at $800 per ounce -- it would total about half that. So which advances in the standard of living would you have wanted to forgo by sticking to a limited natural resource?
On the other hand, the current system has problems. I believe Alan Greenspan himself stated that "In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation." Instead of blindly arguing against something, consider the consequences and alternatives. If you have some ideas, please let us know.
I don't see why some people have so much difficulty with value of money. Here's a simple solution: if you don't trust the dollar to maintain its value, buy a scarce resource such as bulk gold. It will maintain some relative value regardless of what happens to the dollar, even in light of the natural ups and downs of the gold market due to supply and demand.- cashman57, on 03/04/2008, -11/+21The gold standard was dropped after the federal reserve pumped too much capital in the system. Your version does not fit with the facts.
The reason the federal reserve pumped money in the system was to covr the cost of the war and nobody who has any knowledge of history .
Tell you what, look at the value of gold after every war, declared or undeclared that we have ever been in and then tell me again how good the federal reserve note is, OK?
And I would be trading in silver and gold as my coin if the federal reserve had not closed down Liberty Dollar.
Your federal reserve worshipping lies get you nowhere in the face of reality.
Now get some real knowledge or quit pretending you have any.
Back up your assertion that the federal reserve SOLVED A PROBLEM or go pound sand.
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered".
-Thomas Jefferson in 1802 in a letter to then Secretary of the Treasury, Albert Gallatin
"Historically, the United States has been a hard money country. Only [since 1913] has the United States operated on a fiat money system. During this period, paper money has depreciated over 87%. During the preceding 140 year period, the hard currency of the United States had actually maintained its value. wholesale prices in 1913... were the same as in 1787".
-Kenneth Gerbino, former chairman of the American Economic Council
"The real truth of the matter is, and you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the US. since the days of Andrew Jackson. History depicts Andrew Jackson as the last truly honorable and incorruptible American president".
- President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, November 23, 1933 in a letter to Colonel Edward Mandell House - grrrrrrrrrrrrrr, on 03/04/2008, -2/+7You also forgot to mention the multi TRILLIONS of dollars that would not exist in the hedge fund house of cards...you're right The Fed doesn't get enough 'credit'
- gabeh73, on 03/04/2008, -2/+7and if we happen to invest in gold and the feds confiscate it AGAIN then tough luck...hey whats the problem? come on guys you didn't expect us to let you keep the gold did you? ya we will just keep changing the rules as we wish and the little guy will suffer and you can suck on it. That sounds real fair aki.
- cashman57, on 03/04/2008, -11/+21The gold standard was dropped after the federal reserve pumped too much capital in the system. Your version does not fit with the facts.
- aki009, on 03/04/2008, -29/+9Your argumentation -- unfortunately -- is not consistent with the facts. The gold standard was dropped (in part) as early as 1933, which was 8 YEARS BEFORE WW2 even began. Further, the amount of US dollars in circulation today, upwards of $7.3 trillion, could not be possibly covered by gold, as even if all the gold ever mined were totaled up, and valued -- for example at $800 per ounce -- it would total about half that. So which advances in the standard of living would you have wanted to forgo by sticking to a limited natural resource?
- Look4Truth, on 03/04/2008, -10/+27Um...no. Governments should print money without paying interest on it, k thx.
- megabozz, on 03/04/2008, -4/+4That would probably be even worse. Look at the hyper-inflation post WWI Germany experienced or the hyper-inflation in Zimbabwe today.
- Stochio, on 03/04/2008, -1/+6Mega, that doesn't address what he's saying. He's simply stating that the Treasury shouldn't pay interest to a non-gov't entity. A post about hyper inflation is non-sequitur.
- mesasone, on 03/04/2008, -0/+1I know that Stochio just mentioned this, however it's worth making explicitly clear that the Fed is a group of privately held banks and while they work closely with the government in regulating the economy, the US Government is NOT the one who gets to print money.
- megabozz, on 03/04/2008, -4/+4That would probably be even worse. Look at the hyper-inflation post WWI Germany experienced or the hyper-inflation in Zimbabwe today.
- Look4Truth, on 03/04/2008, -7/+44How's the fed's track record?
http://quotes.ino.com/chart/?s=NYBOT_DX&v=dmax
Uh uh, looks great. The dollar is worth four cents of what it use to be but we should keep them around because they're doing such a great job at robbing us, I mean printing money.- j3st3r, on 03/04/2008, -2/+1uhh what you are referring to is this crazy thing called "inflation", its what happens when there is economic growth. its the fed that strikes a good balance between maintaining growth and stopping inflation. Deflation is in fact cosidered unfavorable because then there is no incentive to invest and the economy goes down the ***** hole. Why would you invest in anything when you could leave your money in your matress in make more money. Around 2% is considered a favorable amount of inflation, and the fact that the dollar is worth a fraction of what it used to be is irrelevant (it is called the nominal value of your money), what is important is the REAL value of your money, a.k.a how much you can actually ?BUY with it.
Our economic situation isn't that bad right now, so quit bitching about it, we experience 1/6 of the recession that we did a century ago.
- j3st3r, on 03/04/2008, -2/+1uhh what you are referring to is this crazy thing called "inflation", its what happens when there is economic growth. its the fed that strikes a good balance between maintaining growth and stopping inflation. Deflation is in fact cosidered unfavorable because then there is no incentive to invest and the economy goes down the ***** hole. Why would you invest in anything when you could leave your money in your matress in make more money. Around 2% is considered a favorable amount of inflation, and the fact that the dollar is worth a fraction of what it used to be is irrelevant (it is called the nominal value of your money), what is important is the REAL value of your money, a.k.a how much you can actually ?BUY with it.
- Carthagefield, on 03/04/2008, -3/+26What you're describing is fiat currency and fractional reserve banking. You are right to believe that this has been the primary reason for America's prosperity over the last century. It has also allowed the middle classes to expand and prosper, while allowing even the poorest in society to enjoy ever higher living standards, all because of the easy availability of private loans.
Here is the conundrum though: If these economic practices are necessary, why does the US government need the Federal Reserve, a secretive private bank that is anything but federal (it is not even a government organisation), to provide these services for them? What benefit does the US gain from this arrangement? Would it not make more sense for the government to create their own money, and avoid massive interest payments? Why is the FR so opaque? Why are the minutes of FR meetings never published, even to Congress? Why has the FR never been independently audited, not even by Congress?
I'm no economist, maybe I just don't get it. Can someone explain to me what I am missing here, because I just don't see what the FR does that the government could not do by themselves?- aki009, on 03/04/2008, -6/+10The independence -- in theory at least, and I underline the word theory -- is intended to make sure that the great power that the Federal Reserve has won't be abused by whoever happens to win elections. Hence the lack of oversight. I don't like it, but I also don't want some politicians mocking with it. Can you imagine Billary getting their hands on controlling how much money they can print? I agree that the power of the Fed warrants continuous re-evaluation of their position, but doing just anything only to impart change won't fix it, and has a great potential for making things a lot worse.
- gabeh73, on 03/04/2008, -2/+9The "Independence" was a joke when Arthur Burns was chairmen. Volker and Greenspan have fooled many into believeing it exists, but that is a joke too. In any case, the theoretical independence of today's fed could be replicated by the president appointing the head just as he does now. What us cynics don't understand is why is it neccessary for taxpayer dollars go to pay itnerest to a private entity that gets to use our 300-400 billion dolalrs all year and then return some 95% of it at the end of the year? how does this profitibable fleecing of the public actually help the public? In case you disptue my numbers you can look up the fed annual reports...it is all in there ...the expenses the dividends etc....
- grrrrrrrrrrrrrr, on 03/04/2008, -1/+5How about an audit of the physical gold reserves. Surely someone has been in the vaults in the last 30 years to wipe the dust off the bullion if not to use them like giant Lego blocks to build a fort...OK maybe not the second scenario...but why not have the audit open for public inspection? They could make it pay per view like Geraldo in Al Capone's secret vault....
- Carthagefield, on 03/04/2008, -0/+5"Can you imagine Billary getting their hands on controlling how much money they can print?"
It's not that simple. Any spending plans proposed by the president would have to be approved by Congress first. Congress is designed to limit the power of the president. Congress is answerable to the people (allegedly), which in theory completes the circle of democratic power. The FR acting to control presidential policies by limiting his spending power is therefore unnecessary, as that is already controlled by Congress.- ThorsSon, on 03/04/2008, -0/+2First off... that is the circle of republican power... in a democratic society, the people would vote for every decision/action made.
But, what you say about checks and balances would be correct if it were not for the fact that the president can do anything he wants if he first declares the nation to be in a "state of emergency"... which... we are in an effectively permanent "state of emergency"... and have been for a long time. - Carthagefield, on 03/04/2008, -0/+1@ThorsSon
Sorry, are you just criticising the logic of my statement, or endorsing aki009's view that the FR is an effective presidential oversight comity? - ThorsSon, on 03/05/2008, -0/+1I am lamenting the fact that the established checks and balances have been effectively sidestepped by the executive branch. Mainly was a tangential comment.
- ThorsSon, on 03/04/2008, -0/+2First off... that is the circle of republican power... in a democratic society, the people would vote for every decision/action made.
- Stochio, on 03/04/2008, -0/+3So make the Treasury a 4th major branch of government. We want independent judges so it's a separate branch, after all.
- TsuruchiBrian, on 03/05/2008, -0/+2Politicians, as bad as they are, are accountable to the people. They are required to take an oath of office and can be disciplined through censure and impeachment.
The Federal Reserve does is not accountable to anyone. It breaks our system of checks and balances even to give that much unchecked power to an elected entity much less an an unaccountable entity.
What bothers me more than this is that we seem to have created a system where the American people are forced to pay interest to a private entity, for the privilege of borrowing money from themselves. This is ridiculous.
- gabeh73, on 03/04/2008, -2/+5Carthage...While I understand you are kinda on the same side. It doesn't really make sense that the fiat fractional reserve system has allowed the USA to prosper greater than it would have otherwise. You know that it also allowed the government to borrow the money neccesary to conduct WW1 this insane waste of resources led to even mroe insnane waste of resources in WW2....all of this captial would have been to much much mroe productive use if middle class america had been able to use it on education, business and factories. The returns on this capital would have been much greater if watched over by the people who earned the money instead of the bureacrats who wasted it on bombs and welfare that corrupted our culture to a large extent.
- Carthagefield, on 03/04/2008, -0/+3"Carthage...While I understand you are kinda on the same side."
Heh, I'm not sure my views on the Fed correlate with anyone who has posted thus far. While you could say I oppose almost everything the FR stands for, I can also see the benefits of fiat and frb. I consider all three mutually exclusive, and so I am in favour of abolishing the Fed and restoring power over the economy back to the government. I am of the opinion however, that fiat and frb would continue with or without the Fed, and with good reason.
"It doesn't really make sense that the fiat fractional reserve system has allowed the USA to prosper greater than it would have otherwise."
I disagree. Fractional reserve banking allows banks to typically loan 10x more money than they have in reserve. In short, this empowers a far greater amount of people than under the old system, as it allows citizens of almost any means to invest in their own enterprise by way of a bank loan. Before frb, a working man's prospects of owning his own house or business were slim to none, if it required that he loan the money to do so. Credit was only available to the wealthy, as the banks had far less money in reserves in which to loan out. For all it's faults, the current system has succeeded in redistributing wealth to the working and middle classes very effectively.- Stochio, on 03/04/2008, -0/+2If you want to list benefits, fine, but redistribution of wealth to the working and middle classes is a stretch. The classes that you list suffer from money illusion to a higher degree than the upper classes, and therefore are more content to accept nominal wage increases alongside a stagnation of fall of real earnings. It is this phenomenon, along with a few others such as nominal prices in contracts, menu costs, etc that allow monetary policy to be an effective combatant of investment lulls and its corresponding unemployment increases. Secondly, the lower classes are on nominally specified fixed incomes to a larger degree than the upper classes. Because this purchasing power falls due to inflation, these classes of people suffer. There are some possible talking points about the benefits of the Federal Reserve, but these are not among them.
- Carthagefield, on 03/04/2008, -0/+1"There are some possible talking points about the benefits of the Federal Reserve, but these are not among them."
I am not endorsing the FR in any way, my opinion of this nefarious organisation has been made clear. What I am endorsing is the benefits of fractional reserve banking (frb). I am also in favour of abolishing the FR, and installing a true federal banking system with complete congressional oversight.
With regards to frb however, I believe there is no turning back from this practice, and a good thing it is too. Many years ago, banks could not lend out more than the physical currency they held in their vault. This naturally created a system where only people with impeccable credentials could hope to secure a bank loan, which of course excluded all but the elite and the wealthy. What hope did Victorian era 'commoners' have of creating their own wealth (owning land, property or business) without the help of the banks? Fractional reserve banking has liberated the 'lesser classes' as much as civic libraries, the internet or any social reform for that matter, by simply allowing free enterprise to prosper. It has created the middle classes, expanded and diversified industry, and pretty much created the American empire single handed. Frb has made it possible for anyone (rich or poor) with the right idea to become an entrepreneur and escape their own poverty. If all said is true, why would anyone except the elite want to go back to the old system? If we must live under a capitalist state, let us all have equal opportunities!
- Carthagefield, on 03/04/2008, -0/+3"Carthage...While I understand you are kinda on the same side."
- jeffiek, on 03/04/2008, -0/+6"I just don't see what the FR does that the government could not do by themselves?"
Nothing. Governments can print money just as easily as the fed. - j3st3r, on 03/04/2008, -0/+1Because the government would have to go through the process of deciding what to do, and we all know that the government takes for freaking ever to do anything, and the economy doesn't wait for the government to try to fix it. Also, politicians have no idea how the economy works, much like most of the people on digg, and therefore I don't want them to decide what to do, I want the most qualified economists in the world (the Fed economists) to figure out what help the economy needs.
- TsuruchiBrian, on 03/05/2008, -0/+2We don't need a military either. We can just hire the most qualified mercenaries in the world.
The idea is not that government is really good at doing things, it is that the government is accountable to the people, so it can only get so corrupt as long as we have free elections.
I don't trust ANYONE with that much power. I would rather have the power belong to a group of evil politicians that I can vote to have impeached rather than group of brilliant economists that are accountable to no one. Money corrupts nearly everyone. I don't think economists are immune.
Besides, we should just hire these economists to work for a government agency. The government can actually get stuff done, given enough money (e.g. NASA moon landings). Paying to employ all these economists can't possibly be more money than the interest we are paying to the FR.- BuddhaManFizz, on 03/06/2008, -1/+1You know what really expedites a process? Red tape! Bigger government! More regulations!
The FED needs to be independent of the government to do its job. It must take part in open market operations to control the money supply, interest rate and inflation rate with the goal of adding to the stability of the economy. All of this must take place at the speed of the economy, not as the speed of the government. Most attempts by the government to institute fiscal policy to regulate the economy are too late or not well aimed.
- BuddhaManFizz, on 03/06/2008, -1/+1You know what really expedites a process? Red tape! Bigger government! More regulations!
- TsuruchiBrian, on 03/05/2008, -0/+2We don't need a military either. We can just hire the most qualified mercenaries in the world.
- aki009, on 03/04/2008, -6/+10The independence -- in theory at least, and I underline the word theory -- is intended to make sure that the great power that the Federal Reserve has won't be abused by whoever happens to win elections. Hence the lack of oversight. I don't like it, but I also don't want some politicians mocking with it. Can you imagine Billary getting their hands on controlling how much money they can print? I agree that the power of the Fed warrants continuous re-evaluation of their position, but doing just anything only to impart change won't fix it, and has a great potential for making things a lot worse.
- gabeh73, on 03/04/2008, -7/+17ya I have a proposal aki009...allow the free competition of currencies as Ron Paul has proposed. That means getting rid of capital gains/income taxes on inestments in potential competitors to US dollars(gold/silver/copper-platinum or any other commodiites). If the fed is so great why does it have arrest people for printing silver coins? It seems like a rather totalitarian response, don't you agree? Your ridiculous argument tactic of creating a strawman about buckskins is deserving of ridicule, try reading some books and you can come up witha strawman that at least is close to waht anti-federal reserve folks want! Heck...I'm actually fine with the dollar, and the FEd on a temporary basis. However, how can you defend having it privately owned...private folks get to hold the interst all year long until they give some of it back(although they are more happy to keep a few billion for "expenses"). If you are socialist enough to believe in the fed shouldn't you be in favor of wantign the government running it instead of absolutely screwing the tax payer every last possible way? oh ya JFK tried to get that done and he got shot...big coincidence huh? it is really amazing that the lone gunmen killed the guy who Rockefller and his brother-in-law CIA friend Allen Dulles also hated.
- aki009, on 03/04/2008, -4/+8Yup. And this is why my vote is for Ron Paul. If you check my background, you'll see that I've done so since early last year. So there.
(As to theories on why JFK got shot, there are many guesses out there already, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone who thought they had "bought" him found out that either that was not the case, or that someone else paid more.)- gabeh73, on 03/04/2008, -5/+3I'm no expert on JFK...but if you look at who was on the Warren Comission(the guys who did the cover up) and the guys that JFK was pissing off in the 12 months before his death....McCloy, Allen Dulles(fired as the CIA head by JFK)...a couple months later he helps kill jfk and then gets appointed to the board the cover it up.
McColy was a legal counselor to the major German chemical combine I. G. Farben, and was the Assistant Secretary of War from 1941 to 1945, during which he was noted for opposing the nuclear bombing of Japan. [2] McCloy was notably supportive of the Third Reich at least until 1939 and was photographed sitting with Hitler at the 1936 Berlin Olympics.[citation needed]
During World War II, as Assistant Secretary of War, McCloy was a crucial voice in setting U.S. military priorities. The War Department was petitioned throughout late 1944 to help save Nazi prisoners by ordering the bombing of the railroad lines leading to Auschwitz and the gas chambers in the camp. McCloy responded that only heavy bombers would be able to reach the sites from England, and that those bombers would be too vulnerable and were needed elsewhere.
in short he was a scumbag and later he served as chairman of the Chase Manhattan Bank from 1953 to 1960, and as chairman of the Ford Foundation from 1958 to 1965; he was also a trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation from 1946 to 1949, and then again from 1953 to 1958, before he took up the position at Ford.
From 1954 to 1970, he was chairman of the prestigious Council on Foreign Relations in New York, to be succeeded by David Rockefeller, who had worked closely with him at the Chase Bank. McCloy had a long association with the Rockefeller family, going back to his early Harvard days when he taught the young Rockefeller brothers how to sail.
so all the crap about the cubans killing JFK or the mafia doing it....it is fishy, sure the CIA had conenctions with both groups and they could use people from those connections, but only th eWarrne comission could stonewall evidence and controlt eh investigation and manufacture the big lies they did and all that points back to rockefller/cia/big bankers killed him. - aki009, on 03/04/2008, -3/+6Gabeh73, I don't know McCloy too well, so I can't say one thing or another about your characterization of him. However -- while I don't agree with it -- I understand why he would have ignored bombing the rail lines to Auschwitz. The raids on Regensburg and Schweinfurt in 1943, a significantly shorter distance flown inside the "Reich", had been one of the most disastrous raids for the US, as the 8th Air Force lost the use of 147 bombers, out of 376 participating in the raid. Thus declining a potentially worse raid for no direct military gain would have been understandable for at least the first half of 1944. Later, factories near to Auschwitz were attacked, and excuses as to not making a raid because of concerns for losses would then no longer be credible.
- gabeh73, on 03/04/2008, -1/+5ya you may be right on the particualr timing of raids on auschwitz rail lines...I can see not wasting lives on those bombing raids in a life or death military decision process(my grand dad may have been killed making those raids). However, the other things that guy did are pure scumbag" McCloy was notably supportive of the Third Reich at least until 1939 and was photographed sitting with Hitler at the 1936 Berlin Olympics.[citation needed]" straight from wikipedia...BOTTOMLINE:he had no moral problem with a totalitarian state. If a guy will shake Hitler's hand and pimp for corporate state facism, then I believe a guy will have no problem coverign upt he murdered of a president who stands in the way of it. Have you ever read about Smedly Butler? Marine General...google him read his book.
- aki009, on 03/04/2008, -0/+1Again, I can't say anything specific as to McCloy, but it seems that in 1936 Hitler had a rock-star like cult around him, perhaps due to the raw power that he represented and the way the nazi party worked. I guess it's sort of like the sycophants that orbit around any powerful person. In 1936 Hitler was about to start his foreign political maneuvering in earnest (Spain, for example), and he likely was trying to kiss as many American &sses as possible to keep the US out of his dealings. Hence many people got the sit-with-me-and-here's-a-handshake treatment.
I'm saying that just getting a handshake from the third biggest mass murderer in world history (Mao getting the number 1 spot, Stalin number 2), doesn't mean McCloy is a scumbag. Now this doesn't mean that McCloy didn't want his * kissed by Hitler, or that McCloy isn't a scumbag.
- aki009, on 03/04/2008, -0/+1Again, I can't say anything specific as to McCloy, but it seems that in 1936 Hitler had a rock-star like cult around him, perhaps due to the raw power that he represented and the way the nazi party worked. I guess it's sort of like the sycophants that orbit around any powerful person. In 1936 Hitler was about to start his foreign political maneuvering in earnest (Spain, for example), and he likely was trying to kiss as many American &sses as possible to keep the US out of his dealings. Hence many people got the sit-with-me-and-here's-a-handshake treatment.
- Stochio, on 03/04/2008, -1/+3The rationale of digging a comment ought to be based on whether or not a cogent and unique thought is presented. Aki's posts are generally in that category. The world is full of gray. The discussion is complex. The idea of a single currency is not the worst idea in the world. For one, it greatly facilitates involuntary compensation as determined by a court in civil cases where a free-market determination of remuneration is impossible. The debate is best served when Diggers talk about aspects of banking and not labels for entire institutions.
- gabeh73, on 03/04/2008, -2/+1yes lets push for a global currency, but wait that isn't very popular....ok lets destroy the dollar and offer a global currency as a "solution"! Hey, great idea Stochio now we have one central bank with even less accountability to the American people. I'm sure the people they get to run this will be even more altruistic than the guys in congress so we all have nothing to fear. The UN does love you, so be happy, here take this pill and you won't worry about messy things like economics.
- Stochio, on 03/04/2008, -0/+2Gabeh, there is a color between black and white. There are actually many. I never said there should be one world currency. It is possible for solutions to exist not at end points and still remain principled. You are using an either-or fallacy.
- gabeh73, on 03/04/2008, -5/+3I'm no expert on JFK...but if you look at who was on the Warren Comission(the guys who did the cover up) and the guys that JFK was pissing off in the 12 months before his death....McCloy, Allen Dulles(fired as the CIA head by JFK)...a couple months later he helps kill jfk and then gets appointed to the board the cover it up.
- Tezkat, on 03/04/2008, -1/+3Gabeh, on an interesting note, Kennedy did sign executive order 11110 which put the country on a silver standard I believe, and I think he was in motion to get rid of the FED.
- Rednik2011, on 03/04/2008, -1/+1No, people just don't understand the actual meaning of Executive Order 11,110. It gave the Fed more power.
- Tezkat, on 03/05/2008, -0/+1hmm I'd have to look it into it more as I have read conflicting stories upon EO 11110. I've heard it had long term goals in snatching some power from the FED, otherwise I don't think it gave the FED more power in the long term because it essentially was never really publicly discussed and eventually repealed, so I assume the FED simply wanted it it silently stamped out for whatever purpose.
- gabeh73, on 03/04/2008, -0/+1EO 11110 is detailed in wikipedia amongs other places.
bush Sr was a high ranking CIA official at the time as well...funny how hsi career really took off after killing JFK...good job Bush.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-913735472 ...
- Rednik2011, on 03/04/2008, -1/+1No, people just don't understand the actual meaning of Executive Order 11,110. It gave the Fed more power.
- aki009, on 03/04/2008, -4/+8Yup. And this is why my vote is for Ron Paul. If you check my background, you'll see that I've done so since early last year. So there.
- aki009, on 03/04/2008, -20/+11Strange how some are taken to religious-like fervor over topics such as this. It goes as far as Cashman claiming that I'm worshipping the federal reserve, which I've never done. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but this approach to arguments will only get your opinions marginalized. And that _enables_ those who you don't agree with to continue doing as they please. You have to be smarter than that. And as to claiming I believe in one thing or another, may I recommend that you review my comments, diggs and favorites over time. Perhaps even reread what I already stated.
- cashman57, on 03/04/2008, -5/+16Like what problem the federal reserve solved? Where can I find that problem? Why was there a problem that required more money to be printed?
It was quite simply the federal reserve covering the debts created by the Treasury which funded the war, the last declared war.
So, show me the problem that was solved by the federal reserve or admit no such thing ever happened.- aki009, on 03/04/2008, -10/+5Simply by refusing to recognize an important facet to the issue at hand doesn't make that facet go away.
- gabeh73, on 03/04/2008, -2/+9Aki....I think part of what alarmed me about your original comment was that you seemed to think the Fed was just trying to make accurate predictions about demand and sometimes it was wrong unfortunately. This view is pretty debunkable if you study the history of the Fed. from it's inception, thorugh the 1920's boom...to the tight money polciy in the early part of the depression...the 8 month expansion of credit leading up to FDR's 1932 election and then teh re-tightening...to Arthur Burns and Volcker...teh FEd has always been a poltiical institution...and that is without reading ANY "conspiracy" books...simply mainstream books. The Fed picks winenrs and losers and amazingly the folks who pushed for it have always been on the winning side.
- aki009, on 03/04/2008, -7/+6Heh. The US federal government has been run like the city of Chicago for a very long time. Only difference is that Daley gets to keep running for office as often as he likes, whereas at the fed level the president keeps changing every now and then.
- cashman57, on 03/04/2008, -5/+16Like what problem the federal reserve solved? Where can I find that problem? Why was there a problem that required more money to be printed?
- shig, on 03/04/2008, -3/+4"As to the naysayers, may I just ask that you propose alternatives that work, as otherwise you might as well demand that we all start trading in buck skins again."
Gold & silver, of course. Other commodities perhaps. There's no limit to just "bimetallism" anymore. Rhodium? Platinum? Copper? Zinc? Aluminum? Bronze? Brass? Steel? Buckskins? You know that if we continue along the route fiat currency takes us we'll be on the barter system; a system where buckskins actually has more value than whole a bucket of single ply toilet tissues the FRS prints up?- Stochio, on 03/04/2008, -0/+2The disadvantage to these is that tremendous effort is required to create "money" that is never consumed for all time. Even worse, if buckskins are used human effort was required to prepare something that deteriorates quickly. The advantage of commodities is that no authority is required to magically determine the "right" money quantity to satisfy any changes in the velocity of money, changes in the general price level, or -- most importantly -- the economic capacity of society.
- megabozz, on 03/04/2008, -0/+3The stuff that comes off the printing presses isn't capital, unless you want to burn it for fuel to run your industrial machinery. You could could give every man, woman, and child in this country a suitcase of Federal Reserve notes and it won't increase the amount of capital one bit. All it will do is drive up the price of existing goods and services.
- Kontra8, on 03/05/2008, -0/+1There should be no printing money out of thin air. PERIOD. It creates inflation. I come from a country where in the past they printed so much money we had 1000% hiperinflation per year. Yeah we have a central bank that has similar powers to fed reserve now and we have inflation in 3-5% now but... printing money out of thin air will create inflation. The biggest problem is that in whole history of fed reserve (or central banks) there were no politicians that didn't abuse this power and printed money out of thin air. The whole idea is to take that power away from them.
- aki009, on 03/04/2008, -48/+12I take the buries without comment means that there are many who are unable to communicate why they don't agree with me. Might as well be complaining about the weather, guys.
- Look4Truth, on 03/04/2008, -18/+199"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."
- Woodrow Wilson in reference to signing the Federal Reserve Act in 1913.
The Money Masters Video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560 ...- loki49152, on 03/04/2008, -12/+2Yeah, that sounds like he's remorseful and everything.. but.. in actuality, he was only lamenting the fact that he wasn't the one with all that power.
- RazDakarn, on 03/04/2008, -0/+5Woodrow Wilson was the ***** PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
- ch33sehead, on 03/04/2008, -6/+8Yah know, as much as I liked The Money Masters video, they do not cite their sources for ANY of their quotes. They could have easily made them all up. For example, I tried looking for the Benjamin Franklin quote but could not find it anywhere. Not even in his autobiography.
- JohnFrum, on 03/04/2008, -7/+9They also claim the federal reserve act was illegally passed because it was done while congress was in recess. I was going along with their story up til then. But that was something that's very easy to look up. It's a matter of public record that it was passed by a bi partisan majority.
- odigity, on 03/04/2008, -1/+4Congress wasn't technically in recess, but it was basically fraud - they used tricks to get an opportunity to pass it with only a handful of Congress attending, almost all in the same social circle.
- JohnFrum, on 03/04/2008, -2/+1I understand that this is the cliam made in the film. I looked it up though and it isn't true. It wasn't a landslide but it wasn't a close vote either.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Act:
"The Senate, on December 23, 1913, agreed to it by a vote of 43 yeas to 25 nays with 27 not voting. The record shows that there were no Democrats voting "nay" in the Senate and only two in the House. The record also shows that almost all of those not voting on the bill had previously declared their intentions and were paired with members of opposite intentions (See v. 51 Cong. Record, pages 1464, 1487-88)."
- JohnFrum, on 03/04/2008, -2/+1I understand that this is the cliam made in the film. I looked it up though and it isn't true. It wasn't a landslide but it wasn't a close vote either.
- odigity, on 03/04/2008, -1/+4Congress wasn't technically in recess, but it was basically fraud - they used tricks to get an opportunity to pass it with only a handful of Congress attending, almost all in the same social circle.
- JohnFrum, on 03/04/2008, -7/+9They also claim the federal reserve act was illegally passed because it was done while congress was in recess. I was going along with their story up til then. But that was something that's very easy to look up. It's a matter of public record that it was passed by a bi partisan majority.
- funk49, on 03/04/2008, -0/+10And yet...as bad as he felt about ruining his country, Wilson turned around and signed the "Trading With The Enemy" act in 1917. This act was invoked in 1933 by FDR (EO 1602) as grounds to confiscate all gold in the US, nullify any contracts that were owed in gold and prohibiting owning gold until the 70s.
- cashman57, on 03/04/2008, -0/+5Which was finally lifted by Gerald Ford though he didn't end the state of economic emergency.
- RationalXubrnce, on 03/04/2008, -0/+7I don't believe his lying quote for a second. He allowed his country to be destroyed knowing full well what he was doing. He was hoping to be the President of the League of Nations in return. Yeah he may have regretted it but he did it knowiingly.
- rlbond86, on 03/04/2008, -2/+8The first two sentences, "I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country," have never been attributed to Wilson. The remainder of the speech is accurate, though I am not sure about context.
- redcard, on 03/04/2008, -7/+8This quote was COMPLETELY taken out of context for the use of this (and other stupid ***** Ron Paul fan) videos.
He did not say anything of that nature upon signing the FED act. In fact, he said that first part BEFORE the Fed act was signed as an attempt to GET the FED act.- Rednik2011, on 03/04/2008, -1/+3Yes, it is in fact two quotations that have nothing to do with the Fed cobbled together!
- Filmore, on 03/04/2008, -0/+4This is a collection of a few different quotes, not actually the words of pres. Wilson.
http://frankdemarco.wordpress.com/2007/05/29/woodr ... - CaptMonkey, on 03/04/2008, -0/+3[citation needed]
- loki49152, on 03/04/2008, -12/+2Yeah, that sounds like he's remorseful and everything.. but.. in actuality, he was only lamenting the fact that he wasn't the one with all that power.
- Look4Truth, on 03/04/2008, -17/+88Bah, silly Digg links...I'll try again.
The Money Masters
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-158315456 ...
America: Freedom to Fascism
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-165688030 ...- Berkana, on 03/04/2008, -2/+11This hit digg in the form of this:
http://digg.com/educational/A_History_of_Fractiona ...
Good background on this that explains the consequences of fractional reserve banking and monetized debt can be found here:
http://digg.com/business_finance/Our_Debt_based_Mo ...
The second video is certainly a lot easier to watch, being only 47 minutes, rather than 3.5 hours long like Money Masters is. - mike17032, on 03/04/2008, -16/+5I think those ***** movies should be linked in digg comments a few more times, because everyone knows the more often you link something the more true it is right?
- kilmertech, on 03/04/2008, -5/+4I think you stink like ***** :-
- airstrike, on 03/04/2008, -0/+10Zeitgeist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dmPchuXIXQ
- ostracize, on 03/04/2008, -4/+2Zeitgeist is ass. The Jesus-Myth hypothesis and the 9-11 conspiracy theories have been thoroughly debunked. Only Part III carries an element of truth.
- odigity, on 03/04/2008, -2/+3The debunkings were, in turn, also debunked. (No llamas were involved.)
- ostracize, on 03/04/2008, -4/+2Zeitgeist is ass. The Jesus-Myth hypothesis and the 9-11 conspiracy theories have been thoroughly debunked. Only Part III carries an element of truth.
- Berkana, on 03/04/2008, -2/+11This hit digg in the form of this:
- americangoy, on 03/04/2008, -10/+151"Many Americans will be shocked to discover that the principle business of the Fed is to print money from nothing, lend it to the U.S. government and charge interest on these loans."
That is a fairly accurate description actually...- apc3161, on 03/04/2008, -12/+27Yea, and every year they give that money from interest back to the government. Last year they gave $33 billion back to the U.S treasury.
- mike17032, on 03/04/2008, -19/+24Shhh, keep your facts away from the ravings of these foil hat crazies.
- apc3161, on 03/04/2008, -3/+10I'm a big Ron Paul supporter though! Unfortunately, the vocal minority of his supporters are a little on the edge. I use to be a pretty common poster over on the Ron Paul forums when they were first starting up. Although the forums are kinda useless now. Use to be full of very interesting conversations.
The fed just lowers the cost of money by artificially lowering interest rates (interest rates essentially = the cost of money, think of it like renting a car). When they do this, everyone who is not actively involved in borrowing money (aka poor to lower class people) get screwed as this results in inflation. Hence, I don't like the fed.- Cryptocracy, on 08/17/2008, -0/+5I used to spend time on RP forums but they are full of trolls now. I would rather have my enemies out where I can see them, like here on Digg...
- apc3161, on 03/04/2008, -3/+10I'm a big Ron Paul supporter though! Unfortunately, the vocal minority of his supporters are a little on the edge. I use to be a pretty common poster over on the Ron Paul forums when they were first starting up. Although the forums are kinda useless now. Use to be full of very interesting conversations.
- gabeh73, on 03/04/2008, -3/+26they don't give it all back they keep several billion for expenses and "dividends" check out their annual report if you want the facts. They also get the time value of those billions they get to hold onto all year. Think that is worth something?
more importantly the power of deciding when and where to pull the itnerest rate string is worth quite a bit as well. You know it can help a trader to know when and how much all the moves will be ahead of time. - Drax0n, on 03/04/2008, -0/+5You missed the fact they print money from NOTHING... they basicly sit there and wish money into existance.... with nothing to back it, n o gold standard, jusrt the hopes that most amnericans will never realise that they have been had.
- Frnnkdlxx, on 03/04/2008, -1/+3I wonder what would happen if I did that... OH, THAT'S RIGHT! IRS Agents would break down my doors, shoot my dog in the head, fondle my wife and beat me.
- mike17032, on 03/04/2008, -19/+24Shhh, keep your facts away from the ravings of these foil hat crazies.
- PxCxG, on 03/04/2008, -6/+13Actually, it is completely wrong -- the fed never PRINTS money. That is the exclusive job of the treasury department.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Departm ...- d03boy, on 03/04/2008, -2/+19When we say "print" we actually mean "create"... consider it an expression
- apc3161, on 03/04/2008, -2/+9No, but they lower interest rates. How do they lower interest rates? They buy up treasury securities on the open market in order to increase the money supply (more money is more supply, which lowers the price of money, aka the interest rate). How do they buy these treasury securities? They credit people's accounts with the fed. So while they don't "print" money, they do create it out of nothing.
So they create an artificial demand for treasury securities. The is a big win for the federal government. They create a much bigger market for treasury securities than would otherwise exist naturally as the Fed is constantly buying up these securities in order to keep rates low. This results in a bigger money supply, which leads to inflation. F'ing Fed, don't like them.- mugsoh, on 03/04/2008, -0/+7Shame on you; you are only telling half the story. It is true they increase the money supply at times through the purchase of securities, but they also REMOVE money from the system at other times by selling securities.
- d03boy, on 03/04/2008, -0/+3In the form of inflation?
- suzywang3000, on 03/04/2008, -5/+0they don't print money from nothing. They put their name on their money, accept assets, and stand ready to buy that money back with those assets.
- Bravesguy18, on 03/04/2008, -0/+13Money for nothing and chicks for free.
- kcdstudios, on 03/04/2008, -0/+5we got to move these... refrigerators.
- apc3161, on 03/04/2008, -12/+27Yea, and every year they give that money from interest back to the government. Last year they gave $33 billion back to the U.S treasury.
- VikingoTJ, on 03/04/2008, -13/+33This is one of the most complete and informative videos on the American central bank that I have seen.
- rlbond86, on 03/04/2008, -14/+1It's one-sided, thus not complete.
- tman84, on 03/04/2008, -0/+11My favorite thing about neocon establishment defenders is how they all come in here just yelling, without any substance, taken right out of the Sean Hanity handbook.
Typically they jump into the forum, scream about how we are all "Rontards", then call everyone stupid, say they don't understand anything about how the economy works, and leave.
Those who believe the Fed is a bad thing have all obviously done their homework, and I feel the neocon lackeys just fear an intelligent debate. It will just resort to namecalling with them and they'll never address the actual issues.- bc289, on 03/04/2008, -6/+1And what homework have you done? Watched a conspiracy movie with 'references' to back up their claims? The references don't even have page numbers, what a joke.
- tierpinho, on 03/04/2008, -18/+105but hilary/obama/mccain will save us!!!! hahahahahahah - those hacks wont even mention it because they are controlled by it and the debt ridden slaves it produces. wake up america and see the scam! only RP will talk about it and he understands it!
- Amiga500, on 03/04/2008, -14/+16He will do this, but only after curing AIDS, rebuilding the world trade center, and turning wine into water (reverse style, to throw off the skeptics). RP is a great man, but must have priorities.
- goofygarber, on 03/04/2008, -9/+6Maybe he will do all this after winning a state.
The man isn't even in the presidential race...- tierpinho, on 03/04/2008, -4/+6maybe he will get the coverage he deserves first, the election is a scam as well. they are chosen already and we get to pick the lesser of two evils because they are the ones who will not change the fed scam, they are the ones who suck elite dong... and rp is the race!!!!!!
- kilmertech, on 03/04/2008, -2/+5Agree! anyone remember 2000 elections? yeah, i am not sure what went wrong, but being it was focused on Florida, and who is governor of Florida except for W's brother?! oh right, lets recount those votes, and recount them and recount them.
Ballot counting should be done by paper by humans randomly selected ( 12 for each district - chosen at random like jury duty ) . but no, lets have a private software company create a program designed to count votes ( *ahem* how ever the algorithm may be ). Thomas Jefferson said the government must be over thrown every twenty years. He knows why, do we? - daggah, on 03/04/2008, -8/+2Just how much coverage do you think a quack like Ron Paul deserves, again? He was NEVER a viable candidate and he NEVER stood a chance. Do you see people bitching that Mike Gravel or Dennis Kucinich getting very little air time compared to Obama, McCain, Huckabee, or Clinton? The media covering all of the little guys who never stood a chance would be a waste of time.
And it's for the better anyway, considering how much harm Paul's policies would do if he had the chance to enact them.
Seriously Paultards, give it up. Your ***** insane candidate has FAILED.
- kilmertech, on 03/04/2008, -2/+5Agree! anyone remember 2000 elections? yeah, i am not sure what went wrong, but being it was focused on Florida, and who is governor of Florida except for W's brother?! oh right, lets recount those votes, and recount them and recount them.
- iAlex, on 03/04/2008, -1/+5Of course not. The only acceptable candidates for the CFR media and CFR journalists are John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. But the brainwashed fools will vote for Obama, McCain or Clinton anyway. McCain and Clinton are CFR members (and Clinton a Bilderberger) and Barack Obama has the co-founder of the Trilateral Comission with David Rockefeller Zbigniew Brzeziński as his foreign policy advisor and many other establishment traitors behind him. Don't accept treason.
- tierpinho, on 03/04/2008, -4/+6maybe he will get the coverage he deserves first, the election is a scam as well. they are chosen already and we get to pick the lesser of two evils because they are the ones who will not change the fed scam, they are the ones who suck elite dong... and rp is the race!!!!!!
- Arcesius, on 03/04/2008, -9/+3RuPaul?? What's he/she got to do with this?
- Waterrat, on 03/04/2008, -0/+1Nothing...Actually,they all know about this,but they know better than to rock the boat. You rock the boat and you won't be elected,simple as that. Yhe media will diss you and make you look like a fool.
And if you persist..Well,look what they did to Kennedy;
http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/thefederalreserve.ht ...
- Waterrat, on 03/04/2008, -0/+1Nothing...Actually,they all know about this,but they know better than to rock the boat. You rock the boat and you won't be elected,simple as that. Yhe media will diss you and make you look like a fool.
- chuckDontSurf, on 03/04/2008, -7/+7At this point, all you rabid Ron Paul lunatics are doing is insuring that third party candidates will continue to be marginalized for the foreseeable future. The more vehement your ranting gets, the more people want to distance themselves from you.
- Waterrat, on 03/04/2008, -2/+5 So very true...And I'd never vote for someone who is so ignorant they think evolution never happened.
- odigity, on 03/04/2008, -0/+3Dude, I'm an aethiest, and I voted for Ron Paul. Who cares what he thinks of evolution? As President, he will have zero control over my biology text book. What he *will* do is fix the problems with the Federal government - including abolishing the Dept of Education, thereby giving him even less power of education than he will inherit. So his beliefs on evolution? Totally irrelevent.
- stonewaljacksn, on 03/05/2008, -0/+1odigity, you have shown good judgement. unfortunately, people like waterrat are more concerned about irrelevant issues like evolution and don't care about the man-made organizations that will destroy our country's economy.
you know it's sad that there are people like waterrat out there. this federal reserve issue is something that can unite christians, muslims, jews, and atheists under a common cause. instead they'd rather play right into the hands of the bankers and fight amongst eachother.
- Waterrat, on 03/04/2008, -2/+5 So very true...And I'd never vote for someone who is so ignorant they think evolution never happened.
- iAlex, on 03/04/2008, -1/+3Of course not. The only acceptable candidates for the CFR media and CFR journalists are John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. But the brainwashed fools will vote for Obama, McCain or Clinton anyway. McCain and Clinton are CFR members (and Clinton a Bilderberger) and Barack Obama has the co-founder of the Trilateral Comission with David Rockefeller Zbigniew Brzeziński as his foreign policy advisor and many other Rockefeller establishment traitors behind him. Don't accept treason.
- iAlex, on 03/04/2008, -0/+3Also see "Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler" By Antony C. Sutton: http://www.reformation.org/wall-st-hitler.html
- Waterrat, on 03/04/2008, -1/+3 Ah but wait..They are not brainwashed fools,they are deceived people.
Who has deceived them? Who has manipulated them? Who makes sure only a certain message reaches the masses?
Corporate media...And who controls corporate media?
You see,they have already pre-chosen the president for us,as I see it...And it will be one of two people, and we can pretty easily guess who those two people are.
It matters not to those running the show if it's a Dem' or a Rep' cause both will serve their party,the business party...And things will continue as they are and as they have since before we were born.
Free elections and us choosing a president is a scam...We have a choice between dog ***** or bird *****,but it's still *****...
And speaking of *****. I'm sure the bankers feel it's about time to dump more ***** on us and suck up even more money and take even more land from people so they can profit ever more.
Are yoiu SURE you Aussies want to be like the USA when you grow up?
You might want to rethink that cause your mass media is about to fuse into one monster like ours has done.
- iAlex, on 03/04/2008, -0/+3Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) controls the corporate media and journalists. Very few corporations control the majority of news. See http://www.freepress.net/content/ownership for more information.
They already control the mainstream media in most European and industrial nations. So it is not unique to USA, absolutely not.
- iAlex, on 03/04/2008, -0/+3Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) controls the corporate media and journalists. Very few corporations control the majority of news. See http://www.freepress.net/content/ownership for more information.
- stonewaljacksn, on 03/05/2008, -0/+1Obama's connections to these people are why I can't vote for him.
- mempko, on 03/05/2008, -1/+1Actually what can save us is the National Initiative for Democracy. Ron Paul is all for representative government which got us here in the first place.
- VikingoTJ, on 03/04/2008, -13/+38Countdown to negative comments from Onetimer, Sogui, BingoBoner, Reed311, Jasqwerty, SheilaNoya, et al.
10...9...8...- VikingoTJ, on 03/04/2008, -1/+7mike17032 can be added to that list.
- ChayD, on 03/04/2008, -1/+2and PxCxG
- DanOnTheMoon, on 03/04/2008, -2/+14Lulz. If only Digg had a 'foes' list in addition to a friends list.
- VikingoTJ, on 03/04/2008, -1/+10It was easy to define this list because they are the same 6 or 7 Diggers every time. They don't just do this to Ron Paul articles, but any little thing they have a disagreement with. All nasty ad hominem attackers, except for Sogui.
- ChayD, on 03/04/2008, -1/+2That would be so useful, like a virtual gagging order :)
- Sogui, on 03/04/2008, -3/+177...6...5...
- VikingoTJ, on 03/04/2008, -2/+9Actually now I think about it, you normally don't go off posting ad hominem attacks like the rest of them.
- onetimer, on 03/04/2008, -3/+9Hi.
- VikingoTJ, on 03/05/2008, -0/+1LOL Can you bring the rest in? Maybe we could have a party here.
- VikingoTJ, on 03/04/2008, -1/+7mike17032 can be added to that list.
- jimmick, on 03/04/2008, -22/+2Sorry, 45 minute long video would break my internets
Summarise please- Idiggapony, on 03/04/2008, -2/+2Quick summary: the Jews, Freemasons, and Council on Foreign Relations have a secret and nefarious plan to take over the world. Only Dr. Ron Paul can save you. All hail Dr. Ron Paul.
- cl2yp71c, on 03/04/2008, -11/+29Love how "WTC7 controlled demolition,..." was in the right panel.
- mike17032, on 03/04/2008, -30/+6Well this video is on par with that tin foil hat *****, so it fits.
- VikingoTJ, on 03/04/2008, -5/+13Either way its the fault of the US government that we were attacked. Why the ***** did we bother to liberate Kuwait and build bases in Saudi Arabia to begin with?
- alienunknown, on 03/04/2008, -2/+12liberation? lol! yea right. Maybe someone should "liberate" america to prevent america from "liberating" the rest of the world! lol.
- VikingoTJ, on 03/04/2008, -0/+8We wouldn't be in this mess if we simply would just let things be.
- 6minuteabs, on 03/04/2008, -6/+0Yeah, we let things be in Europe for a few years back in the 30s. That worked out splendidly.
- alienunknown, on 03/04/2008, -2/+12liberation? lol! yea right. Maybe someone should "liberate" america to prevent america from "liberating" the rest of the world! lol.
- VikingoTJ, on 03/04/2008, -5/+13Either way its the fault of the US government that we were attacked. Why the ***** did we bother to liberate Kuwait and build bases in Saudi Arabia to begin with?
- mike17032, on 03/04/2008, -30/+6Well this video is on par with that tin foil hat *****, so it fits.
- fodbirdy, on 03/04/2008, -32/+27countdown to 1000 diggs by ron paul supporters
- VikingoTJ, on 03/04/2008, -4/+16There are people of other political persuasions that agree with this. Also there are more Diggers that are friends of Ron Paul than those who befriended Obama on the candidates list.
- mike17032, on 03/04/2008, -16/+4Of course the people that picked Obama didnt make 100 accounts each to do it, but lets not quibble over details right?
Old paul polls at 5% for a reason, he has almost no support.- VikingoTJ, on 03/04/2008, -1/+10LOL I only made one account. I seriously doubt that anybody made the effort to create 100 accounts, and if they did, it would have nothing to do with a story making it to the front page because the Digg algorithm looks for accounts emanating from the same IP addresses.
- TheNik, on 03/04/2008, -6/+2Proxy says what?
- NightVortez, on 03/04/2008, -1/+10How far deep into conspiracy theories do you have to go in order to deny his internet popularity? Perhaps it has passed now, and did consist of a lot of bandwagon fans, but someone creating a 100 accounts to make his stories to the front page is not only farfetched but insulting.
- VikingoTJ, on 03/04/2008, -0/+5Again TheNik, there are lists of proxies that major websites like Digg use to detect that sort of thing.
- d03boy, on 03/04/2008, -1/+7I know a lot of Obama lovers who made over 20 accounts each. Suck it.
- mike17032, on 03/04/2008, -16/+4Of course the people that picked Obama didnt make 100 accounts each to do it, but lets not quibble over details right?
- DanOnTheMoon, on 03/04/2008, -1/+7It's tough being right.
- xdevit, on 03/04/2008, -7/+1So your saying Ron Paul supporters are stupid ?
- Grimdotdotdot, on 03/04/2008, -9/+5From a non-American point of view, the do appear to have wasted quite a lot of their time.
- metalmilitia430, on 03/04/2008, -1/+8I think it was time well spent, supporting Paul. Even though he may not get the nomination all is not lost. He has opened the eyes of so many people allowing them to see the truth. Thanks to Paul there is a revolution that is growing every day. We want our freedom, we want our liberty, we want America. Remember it isn't the president that runs our country it is the people and the revolution will one day be so large that we will take our country back.
- daggah, on 03/04/2008, -7/+1What truth would that be, again? Paul's a moron and your understanding of economics, politics, and history are all flawed if you truly support him.
- daggah, on 03/04/2008, -5/+2If you're trying to imply that they're not...well, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
- Grimdotdotdot, on 03/04/2008, -9/+5From a non-American point of view, the do appear to have wasted quite a lot of their time.
- VikingoTJ, on 03/05/2008, -0/+1Try 2000 Diggs! :)
- VikingoTJ, on 03/04/2008, -4/+16There are people of other political persuasions that agree with this. Also there are more Diggers that are friends of Ron Paul than those who befriended Obama on the candidates list.
- Alphonze, on 03/04/2008, -24/+39Zeitgeist is a really good movie if you wanna know about these kind of shams that we live under, really good evidence to back it all up too.
- xadhominemx, on 03/04/2008, -16/+21If you want others to treat your ideas seriously and try to prove a point about the federal reserve, it is probably not in your best interest to direct people to a ***** truther video like zeitgeist.
- Jexie, on 03/04/2008, -6/+8It might be in your best interest to explain why it's ***** instead of leave it at '***** truther video'. People who believe the official 9/11 story are the minority now, you're not going to have much luck relying on ad hominem attacks with your point.
- xadhominemx, on 03/04/2008, -5/+2http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=85264
- Jexie, on 03/04/2008, -0/+2So let me get this straight, your reply consisted of posting a link to some message board where the people:
a) whine that they are already 6 minutes in (gasp)
- Jexie, on 03/04/2008, -0/+2So let me get this straight, your reply consisted of posting a link to some message board where the people:
- xadhominemx, on 03/04/2008, -5/+2http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=85264
- Jexie, on 03/04/2008, -6/+8It might be in your best interest to explain why it's ***** instead of leave it at '***** truther video'. People who believe the official 9/11 story are the minority now, you're not going to have much luck relying on ad hominem attacks with your point.
- xadhominemx, on 03/04/2008, -16/+21If you want others to treat your ideas seriously and try to prove a point about the federal reserve, it is probably not in your best interest to direct people to a ***** truther video like zeitgeist.