FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Right woos Left
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 13, 14, 15 ... 18, 19, 20  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
PatrickSMcNally



Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 846

PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

> Leading up to the time that the Fed was created tycoons such as Rockefella were immensely unpopular

Oh I certainly agree with that. You're mixing up the dates that I'm speaking of. When I referred to public aid measures such as the GI loans after WWII, I was speaking of the mid-20th century, not 1913. By the mid-20th century the Rockefeller family had spent a lot more time cultivating a liberal image so as to undo some of the effects of its earlier ugly image. The creation of the Federal Reserve can reasonably be regarded as one of the early steps in this direction. At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries most of the very rich were regarded as "robber barons" and certainly no working employee saw anything good in them. That image was partially altered and reshaped through the middle portion of the 20th century. While some of what was done to reshape it was just public relations, it was a public relations scheme which exerted a greater influence precisely because the improved conditions of prosperity which people were seeing in the mid-20th century really did on the surface seem to warrant a more optimistic image.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PatrickSMcNally



Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 846

PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

> everyone else seems to believe that since the 1970s on a pretty much global basis, wealth has been progressively transfered upwards to the super rich.

A fact which corresponds very closely to the reality that there is much less room for real legitimate profit to be created, at least not at the same pace. Profit can mean only one of two things. Either it amounts to stealing where one person gets more than they had before while another gets less. Or it amounts to the creation of new value in a genuine sense which adds to the body of wealth which human beings have available to them and increases the overall level of comfort of all. In the latter case we may see an individual such as Thomas Edison get rich, but the argument in defense of that is supposed to be that he got rich because he created something which is useful to us all. If we see fewer such inventions adding to the real utility which people possess, or if those inventions which do emerge result from research which was heavily tax-payer funded such as much of the early computer research was, then giving a huge surplus of that wealth to Bill Gates doesn't really reflect earnings from individual innovation in the same way. Under such conditions where the pace of real innovation is much slower, saying that some people are gaining enormous profits can only mean that the rest of us have been robbed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Socred



Joined: 11 Mar 2007
Posts: 39

PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The truth about credit creation is easily understood when the honest
realities of nature and human beings in association are presented and the superstition is dragged from behind the curtain of lies.

There are many thousands of "money" and financial products but even if you possessed them all you would starve on a desert island.
In contrast without any money, if stranded on a tropical island, the limitations to living circumstance only lie within the physical, intellectual and psychological realities.

This is the simplest truth about money.

The Federal Reserve is as dependable a source of money knowledge as the oil cartels would be for clear honest information on energy realities.

The accounting realities of credit creation are well dealt with in the Debt as Money, Kingdom of Moltz and Salvation Island videos.

That is not to say that these presentations are faultless.

The validity of a source should be examined but it does not render the statement false. It is hardly necessary to expand the potential for trickery with these type of distracting device. What a great trap it is to
paint the truthful statement as a fraud.

If there was some more focus on the principles and accounting realities
instead of viewing all information as brands and labels as is the common habit here then something of use might be produced for the record.

The truth is being drowned with unnecessary complexity.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PatrickSMcNally



Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 846

PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

> Patrick this is what I said; please do not misrepresent me.

I simply pointed out that this does not address the issue of how the Federal Reserve returns money to the Treasury every year after deducting a fraction which is counted as operating expenses, which was the context in which that comment first appeared as a response to me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jirons



Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Posts: 172

PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Drew, Garry, Patrick

The banks rely on perceived integrity associated with government support. Drew described a business based on actual integrity - there is a difference.

I'm not sure if Drew had me as the "one person" or Garry, or maybe someone else or anyone. I already accept that experts should not be relied on too heavily and that our own instincts are sometimes a better guide.

However if you wish to convince other people that your view is correct, as I occasionally do, you need more than "I say so". I've relied heavily on Mullins for this and though I still see nothing that directly exposes his work on the Fed as false or deliberately misleading, Gary has indeed posted some links that tell a quite different story.

Again, I agree with Drew that we should not continue to argue a position to merely save face. I will look at those links Gary; this thread will probably be long dead before I can comment. Maybe if I decide I have anything useful to say I will do so by PM.

And those links do look like bloody hard work, but then so is reading Mullins and sorry Patrick, but even if I didn't think it was an absolute barefaced con, I don't think I'd want to tackle the official FedSpeak.

Yep its an indefensible sin, but I'll end by quoting myself

Quote:
http://homepage.mac.com/drewterry/.cv/drewterry/Sites/.Public/Schiff_King_Moltz.pdf-zip.zip

Delightful!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dilbert_g
Guest





PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 12:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wu,
It's not that Humanism is bad, it's that it's been hijacked. Of course the UN is an example. Founded by Rockefeller. Debating club. No teeth. Dominated by Security Council, i.e. America and G7,8, or 9. It's a TOOL.

1. The doctrine that people's duty is to promote human welfare (that is so sinful)
2. The doctrine emphasizing a person's capacity for self-realization through reason; rejects religion and the supernatural
The cultural movement of the Renaissance
synonym: humanitarianism


Wow. Sounds chilling. NOT. On the other hand, when elites create INSTITUTIONS to promote humanism, it is wise to watch WHAT they are promoting and HOW they are promoting it. Like, do machine guns or other murderous devices play a role in this paradise.

witness:
Quote:
Reconstructionists provide the most enthusiastic constituency for stoning since the Taliban seized Kabul. "Why stoning?" asks North. "There are many reasons. First, the implements of execution are available to everyone at virtually no cost." Thrift and ubiquity aside, "executions are community projects--not with spectators who watch a professional executioner do `his' duty, but rather with actual participants." You might even say that like square dances or quilting bees, they represent the kind of hands-on neighborliness so often missed in this impersonal era. "That modern Christians never consider the possibility of the reintroduction of stoning for capital crimes," North continues, "indicates how thoroughly humanistic concepts of punishment have influenced the thinking of Christians." And he may be right about that last point, you know.


This is from that piece from Reason Mag. So are you really against "humanism"? Or the perversion/bastardization of humanism.

Likewise "Globalization". There is NOTHING inherently wrong with global trade. Marco Polo was one of the first globalists. What's wrong is neo-colonialism, all drawn up in contracts and 'offers you can't refuse', and paraded around as friendly global trade.

They kept saying NAFTA will lead to increased prosperity for all, just you wait, just wait a little longer, it's right around the corner. In reality, anyone who looked at the details KNEW what was up and why it was 'fast-tracked'. One, totally free trade in the midst of unfree people is inherently unfair. Two, it was NOT ever a free trade agreement, it was a rigged and protected trade agreement. Three, it was not truly about "trade" it was about protecting investments and corporations taking advantage of cheap labor and cheap resources and cheap de-regulated landscapes and cheap de-regulated workplaces. So the factual part of "NAFTA" is "North American".

That's why in this Orwellian world, the Security and Prosperity Partnership "dialogue" is so frightening. You are virtually guaranteed that these will DESTROY all security and all prosperity. Is ANYONE trustworthy? I'm even having my doubts about Joe Stiglitz.

By the way, I recognize that excess humanism like excess egalitarianism, especially by law, is also a recipe for disaster or totalitarianism. Total de-regulation (lassez faire) becomes one kind of tyranny, a tyranny of lawlessness, while total regulation (Stalinism) becomes another kind of tyranny. I don't get why people insist on ONE formula being right, and why the idea of developing a dynamic state of equilibrium between the two 'right' answers.

But there are those who really believe that Democracy is stupid and unworkable, and that firm rule by a brilliant and ruthless totalitarian elite is the only solution. Hitler believed that and many others. A lot of ruling elites in America ALSO believe that, and they have not been too shy about that.

Frankly, some people I hear talking ARE too stupid or even willfully stupid (don't want to think about hard things) to be allowed to play a responsible role in tough decisions, or cannot break out of an ego-centric view, or get impatient and throw temper tantrums, or are crazy and out of their fucking minds, or destructive -- and many of them are very opinionated and routinely call up talk radio to promote their views. Others, some even weirder, actually move up to positions of influence.

I don't know a solution --- other than dialogue and building constituencies of those who are NOT so afflicted.

How do you sideline the insane, idiotic, and evil in a democracy/republic? Out number them? Preserve limits of republicanism, i.e. rights?


A lot of these conflicts could vanish with the reversal of corporate personhood, IMO. You can be a protected corporation, subservient to democratic govt. Or you can be a human being. You can't be both.

Perversion of good-sounding motives: Like Bush's war to spread democracy and remove that tyrant Saddam. A lot of people still cling to the childlike faith that actual democracy, human rights, prosperity, and freedom was part of the equation for Iraq. Not a majority, but apparently still a surprising number.

If the Iraq War does not prove that democracy and freedom are BAD, except when implemented by the Pentagon on a victim nation, then the United Nations does not de facto prove that humanitarianism or humanism is wrong.

But I concur with a lot of what you said.


Last edited by dilbert_g on Fri Apr 13, 2007 10:43 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
Ormond



Joined: 14 Apr 2006
Posts: 1556
Location: Belly of the Beast, Texas

PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 2:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Likewise "Globalization". There is NOTHING inherently wrong with global trade. Marco Polo was one of the first globalists. What's wrong is neo-colonialism, all drawn up in contracts and 'offers you can't refuse', and paraded around as friendly global trade.


neo-colonialism: The Hijackers -- who in fact are the descendants of the same families that ran colonialism -- have worse in mind than colonialism. It's global feudalism.

Globalization in the sense of expanding fair market trade and freely travelling and exchange would have happened anyway, but between free people's who respected each other's local cultures.
These global hijackers--aw hell, let's call it what it is, piracy--they are creating a uniform, standardized culture of consumer/producer slaves to sameness, devoid of knowledge of the past, traditions, wisdom. They won't be content until every human exchange on the planet has to pay tribute to them or be controlled by them.

_________________
The anticipated never happens. The unexpected constantly occurs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Don Smith



Joined: 02 Feb 2007
Posts: 248
Location: Erehwon

PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 2:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ormond-
Ol' Karl Marx called it class warfare.
He was not the first to see that it is a system of theft by a few, with all the little pcych jobs to reenforce the "rightness" of the status quo.
The European control model, church, military, the means of production and resources limited to an elite, has managed to keep up the facade that they and their version of human history are the God-given way of the world, and that to question the order of things is to be part of the "mob".
The mob being that group doing all the labor and dying, and not being properly grateful to their benefactors, who allow them to toil their lives away in filth and disease.
The terror the elites have is that some day people will see that the emperor has no clothes, or much of anything useful to human needs.

_________________
"A bayonet is a tool with a worker on both ends."- V.I.Lenin
Patriotism is a manifestation of the Stockholm Syndrome.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jirons



Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Posts: 172

PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 4:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I simply pointed out that this does not address the issue of how the Federal Reserve returns money to the Treasury every year after deducting a fraction which is counted as operating expenses, which was the context in which that comment first appeared as a response to me.


Patrick the quote does not address this issue and was never meant to, it was in a <history> context of its own. I was merely trying to step back from fine detail as I felt and feel that a point was being lost.

Point being that the little insight we have into the behavior of individual big international money people is not suggestive of anything very benevolent springing from anything they touch.

This may be a crude measure, but its easy to apply, so I think worth remembering. Two banker brothers, representing opposing sides, sorting out post WW1 finances (which some people say ensured WW2).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Socred



Joined: 11 Mar 2007
Posts: 39

PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 4:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

More undefinable conflict ridden labels .

Neo-colonialism, class warfare, globalization, global feudalism


Conflict ridden personality cults.

Marx, Lenin,

Is it too much to expect that the facts about money creation
be resolved? This might lead to something useful.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PatrickSMcNally



Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 846

PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 5:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

> Two banker brothers, representing opposing sides, sorting out post WW1 finances (which some people say ensured WW2).

While the Versailles Treaty certainly did lay the groundwork for WWII, it's rather simplistic to pick out the presence of the Warburg brothers as the hidden hand behind anything here. Their presence could more likely have had an ameliorating effect. The fact is that people like Clemenceau, Poincare (related to the brilliantly famous mathematician by the same name) and other French officials were determined to cripple Germany for many generations and that fact was what made the Versailles Treaty an unworkable proposition. If there is any serious evidence that the Warburgs somehow played the true secret role behind the scenes then this proposition, like the various claims that the Federal Reserve is somehow a hidden orchestrator, will require much more specific evidence. I've yet to see any serious argument assembled along these lines. Again, it seems like just another case of people reflexively assigning more influence to a combination of people than what those people really possess. Although personal descriptions are necessarily impressionistic and have only a partial value, it is worth noting that Prince Max's 2-volume memoirs published in 1928 don't suggest any hidden role played anywhere by Max Warburg, whose name appears in the memoirs off and on. What evidence do we really have that either Max Warburg from Germany or Paul Warburg from the United States of America could have suddenly restrained the 'Tiger' (as Clemenceau was sometimes called)? Actually Woodrow Wilson apparently did have some notions of alleviating the worst aspects of Versailles, but his conception of how to do so was based upon such gross naivety that no really effective policy was established. It's really hard for me to see how this suddenly translates into evidence of a hidden Warburg role behind the scenes. I'll be willing to review such arguments when they are coherently formulated with close attention paid to all of the other factors.


Last edited by PatrickSMcNally on Fri Apr 13, 2007 9:04 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PatrickSMcNally



Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 846

PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 6:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

> The banks rely on perceived integrity associated with government support.

If you go back look over the perceived integrity of the banks before the creation of a government-appointed body in 1913 you should find that it was rather low. The 'free banking era' was a time when banks privately running amuck with no regulatory agencies lost the trust of the citizen. J.P. Morgan ended up guaranteeing the solvency:

"The president of the Exchange, R.H. Thomas, called Morgan with the news that the Exchange would have to close unless funds were found. It was the 1:30 P.M. and less than one hour remained for settling accounts. Morgan promptly summoned the leading bankers to his office and notified them that $25 million was needed within fifteen minutes. The meeting produced $27 million, and the Evening Post headline ran, 'MORGAN AND COMPANY SAVE MARKET.'"
-- Elgin Groseclose, AMERICA'S MONEY MACHINE, p. 28.

Creating the Federal Reserve was designed to be a way of giving a more institutional basis to such measures. If it doesn't seem to work that way today, that's more directly related to Ronald Reagan's push for an era of total privatization than it is to any special conspiracy behind the scenes as the Federal Reserve was being created.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 13, 14, 15 ... 18, 19, 20  Next
Page 14 of 20

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.