The Federal Reserve cartelizes the banking industry, allowing individual banks to inflate together, earning them and the government enormous profits, while making sure that they are never held accountable for their fraudulent practices. (Origins of the Fed – Ron Paul)
At least George Bush just read his script with his typical deer in the headlights look and spared us the charade of pretending to understand the economic tsunami engulfing his presidency. Mercifully, he confined his remarks to killing capitalism in order to save it because too many credit stink bombs had clogged the banking toilets, or whatever he said at the time. He should have grabbed a plunger and beat Dirty Hank Paulson and his coven of cronies with it, and kept the treasury shut tight.
Ron Paul is perhaps the only politician alive who knows what he’s talking about when it comes to our money and our banking system.
There is one reason why we have a Federal Reserve System today, and it has nothing to do with what the Fed's publications say. The Federal Reserve exists to give a special privilege to the banking industry. And they have profited greatly from it. But at what expense? The banksters have diluted the value of the 1914 dollar to about eight cents. And its value is still shrinking.
As the Federal Reserve expands the money supply, it reduces the value of all existing dollars. The process happens, though, unevenly because not all prices rise at the same time. The first party to get the new money can spend it at its old purchasing power. Only after filtering through the economy does the money bid up prices for goods. (Origins of the Fed – Ron Paul)The economic emperors have no clothes, and they have destroyed our currency, which is delayed from a final crash only by the Euro’s even greater peril.
See also:
Ron Paul – The Case for Gold
30 comments:
Ron Paul is perhaps the only politician alive who knows what he’s talking about when it comes to our money and our banking system.
-------
Check please.
The hyperbole is flying faster than usual.
Strictly the pure stinky cheese.
So who in your esteemed opinion knows more?
I am no economic genius, but just how does this work-- we buy our own debt. To make matters better, we buy Euros, pumping our dollars into their system and we call it "twists"..and when Europe collapses, it will be too big to fail.. Do I have the gist of it? This is really hard stuff for us knuckle draggers.
Bunkerville: I don't understand it either, and that is by design. They don't want us to understand it. They build these toxic financial doomsday devices and threaten anyone who comes close or suggests dismantling them.
All the result of machinations of the IL-LU-MI-NA-TI!
Who else do you think SET UP the FED in the first place, and for what purpose other than to cede sovereign power to The Oligarchs?
The only reason "they" allow Ron Paul to speak, is because "they" have managed to marginalize him him in "their" media to the extent that most people think he's a "kook" or a "nut"
If the nation took him seriously, "they" would find a way to assassinate him and make it look like the work of a crazed White Supremacist.
"We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."
David Rockefeller Baden-Baden, Germany 1991
Article about the Rockefellers:
Rockefeller Family Fables by Sharon Smith (PDF)
~ FreeThinke
@Ducky,
Because we all know what a fiscal powerhouse Obama is. Him and Timmy Geithner.
Oy.
Get a grip people, where is it writ
in adamantine that talking monkeys should be able to understand the universe?
It's not a question of who knows more, Silverfiddle. it's a question of goals.
Now my perception is that Libertarians fudge it a bit by declaring the market outcomes to be optimum by definition.
You trot out von Mise, Locke, Hayek and I'll trot out Schopenhauer, Veblen and Schumacher. Ultimately it's a matter of whether we can share information.
When you present Ron Paul as an ultimate authority, check please.
Well, the Fed isn't disappearing any time soon, we are most definitely never returning to any version of the Gold Standard, and Ron Paul will never be president.
So, back in life, we have to try to find ways to deal with all this.
There are some measures we could take - like bringing back Glass-Steagall, like beefing up the SEC and enforcing strict conflict of interest laws for regulators and politicians, like ending the concept of the corporation as a human being and money as speech...
There are things we as a people could do to make the world a better place, but ranting about Mises and the Gold Standard will get you nowhere.
JMJ
Yeah, Jersey, a lot of the stuff that should have been in the reform bill.
Reinstatement of the uptick rule to block short sellers from tanking stocks would be another.
The banksters have diluted the value of the 1914 dollar to about eight cents. And its value is still shrinking.
----
I have 2111 dollars, not 1914 dollars.
Tell Ron Paul to get off the crack pipe.
The point about the value of the dollar is that is has been debased. Our savings are eroding before our eyes. No big deal for those holding their wealth in real estate or other hard assets, but for workaday families who have limited recourse to anything other that putting dollars in a bank, it is an outrage.
I thought liberals cared about the little people?
@ Jersey: ...beefing up the SEC...
That's a laugh! Why? So there will be a bigger crowd of government spectators in the bleachers when the next crash happens? Are you really that naive?
As for "treating corporations as people," I assume you would apply the same laws to unions?
I have a few misgivings about Ron Paul. I have heard that he is anti-Israel and would not support an attack on Iran if the need called for it and is pro-gay marriage?
I am still looking into these.
Is "ditto" an acceptable contribution?
(Also, I think some of your regulars need to understand Stigler's capture theory. It doesn't work well with all regulators, but it certainly is applicable to financial regulators.)
Leticia, which of the candidates hates homos enough for your taste?
Leticia... here is some food for thought regarding US support for Israel.
There are 17 states that pay more into the federal treasury than they recieve in federal spending:
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Texas, Washington, and Wisconson.
Subtracting federal tax receipts from federal spending received, the following states receive less from the federal government per year than the nation of Israel:
Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, and Wyoming.
So effectively, Israel receives more US federal tax money than 28 of our 50 states.
Israel is an important ally, but in perspective, isn't this a bit ridiculous?
Figures are based on 2005 data from the following sources:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/92.html
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf
Cheers!
" Israel receives more US federal tax money than 28 of our 50 states."
Would that be combined or individually, Finntann?
A more important question, however, would be WHY does Israel receive such largesse, and HOW has our compulsive generosity towards The Jewish State been brought about?
I doubt if it's the result of a spontaneous outpouring of pro-Zionist sentiment felt with great fervor by the majority of American citizens, NOR could it have been effected purely by the Rapturous Eschatological Vision of Evangelical Christian Fundamentalists.
Could the vast over-arching power of the International Banking Community have anything to do with it, do you suppose?
~ FreeThinke
For those who think crony crapitalism is limited to bailouts, regulatory market protections, and government guaranteed loans:
The US government writes Israel a $3B check, Israel in return agrees to buy $2.75B F-35 fighters from LockMart (Lockheed Martin).
Now if I could only get that kind of a sweetheart deal from Italy on a Ferrari FF
Cheers!
Headline at today's DRUDGE REPORT:
IOWA: GINGRICH 22% PAUL 21% ROMNEY 16%
Interesting, what?
~ FreeThinke
That would be individually FT.
Why? Because the expectation in return is when the stuff hits the fan, they are effectively an unsinkable US aircraft carrier in the eastern Med.
You know damn well that if the US is not receiving overt Israeli assistance due to diplomatic constraints, we sure as hell are receiving covert assistance.
With the exception of the Eurocopter Panther, all their aircraft are US build. Meaning with the exception of the Star of David roundel, they are indistiguishable from US aircraft. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if they were flying reflagged in Gulf War I and II.
I would also think it naive to think that Operation Opera and Operation Orchard (against Iraqi and Syrian reactors) were not carried out with implicit US approval. If anything I think our greater problem is reigning them in as opposed to letting them loose.
And since you seem so fond of poetry:
Blood and destruction shall be so in use
And dreadful objects so familiar
That mothers shall but smile when they behold
Their infants quarter'd with the hands of war;
All pity choked with custom of fell deeds:
And Caesar's spirit, ranging for revenge,
With Ate by his side come hot from hell,
Shall in these confines with a monarch's voice
Cry 'Havoc,' and let slip the dogs of war;
Cheers!
Thank you for the quotation from Marc Antony's speech in Act 3, scene 1 of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar.
Thanks too for the plausible explanation for our curious relationship with The State of Israel.
So the troublesome little country was installed by The West to function effectively as a permanent launching pad for Western missiles, placed there so The West may hold the volatile, oil-rich region at bay?
Makes as much sense as anything else I've heard or imagined.
Thanks again.
MERRY CHRISTMAS!
~ FreeThinke
Israel is an important ally
-------
Why? Please explain.
I did.
Mind you this is my personal conjecture based on my understanding of military history and tactical and strategic military theory.
At the end of WWI with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish revolution the League of Nations established the British Mandate of Palestine. Why?
1. In 1914 the Ottoman Empire consisted of Anatolia (Turkey), most of the Arabian Peninsula, Egypt, and the Sudan. A quick glance at a map illustrates that the British Mandate of Palestine cut the former Ottoman Empire in half. It is the keystone separating the North African from the West Asian portions of the Ottoman Empire. British control of the Palestine precluded a reformation of the Ottoman Empire under the Turks.
2. In 1914 Britain declared Egypt a protectorate. Concurrent with the formation of the British Mandate of Palestine, the UK granted Egypt independence while maintaining control of the canal zone until 1956. Palestine and the canal zone provides strategic control of a military and economic chokepoint in the eastern Med, without the canal any goods transiting to/from Europe have to circumnavigate Africa.This is the reason it was known as the "Highway to India".
3. By WWII petroleum had increased in importance as a military commodity. The focus of the entire North African campaign was a battle for control of the Med, of the Suez Canal, and of the middle eastern oilfields. The Battles of El Alamein halted the Axis advances on Alexandria and subsequently the Suez Canal prompting Churchill to quip "Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning." Had the Allies lost control of the Suez Canal and subsequently the oil fields or access to them, the war could have had an entirely different outcome.
4. The end of WWII started the strategic chess game that was the cold war with the Soviet Union and the West jockeying for position and control. Look at the flashpoints in the cold war: Korea, provides control of access to the Sea of Japan and partial control of the Yellow Sea. Japan, Okinawa, Taiwan control access to the East China Sea. Vietnam in conjunction with the Philippines and Taiwan provide control of the South China Sea. It is all about position.
5. Today, Israel is firmly entrenched in the West. It is a western focus of power and in conjunction with British bases in Cyprus provides air control of the eastern Med, Suez Canal, Red Sea. Look at the other hotspots: Yemen, Somalia, Djibouti... control of the southern end of the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. Oman, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait... control of access to the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman.
AND...those last four in conjunction with Iraq and Afghanistan completely encircle Iran. The situation is worse (for Iran) if you look at our overt and covert relationships with Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Uzebekistan, Tajikistan, and our currently troubled relationship with Pakistan.
We in the West consciously or unsconciously have a habit of encircling real or perceived enemies and are quite good at it.
From "Rule Britannia, Britannia Rule the Waves" it has become "Rule America, America Rule the Air" for make no mistake, an empire we are, reluctant perhaps but an empire nonetheless. No offense to my Navy brethren, but aside from the submarine service the critical projection of naval power is air power, hence carriers are our capital ships.
That 'splain it enough for you?
Cheers!
Ducky,
If you had read Finntann's reply to me, you'd have his answer to that question.
Tiresome thought it may be, it pays to read through the article posted and all the remarks. It helps to make a more intelligent response -- unless, of course, your main objective is merely to keep throwing stink bombs -- which too often appears to be the case.
It wouldn't compromise your integrity a bit if you gave us a reason to like you now and then, instead of laying dismissal and insufferable condescension on us with a trowel.
~ FreeThinke
Silver,
"@ Jersey: ...beefing up the SEC...
That's a laugh! Why? So there will be a bigger crowd of government spectators in the bleachers when the next crash happens? Are you really that naive?"
Three questions there.
1. Because your beloved free market, little spoiled rotten nasty child, is running amok.
2. No.
3. No.
The SEC doesn't necessarily have to be bigger, or more intrusive, or more difficult. What it needs to be is more effective, and we needs laws to make that happen. We have to have rules of the road for such extremely important economic sectors as real estate, banking, and insurance.
This whole betting thing, instead of regular insurance, on mortgages, job markets, foreign trading, with almost no rules to the road, is extremely dangerous.
So, getting to who is at fault here I remind you, "treating corporations as people (is a bad idea - oh, and also I said money is not speech)," "I assume you would apply the same laws to unions," you ask?
Yes. A workers union is not a human being. It is in that sense no different than a corporation.
JMJ
No Freethinker all I read was a lot of paranoia from some fringe right wingers. If the crap goes in the fan then the oil supply is in doubt and Israel will make sure it's secure.
You're freaking delusional.
Jersey: I assure you I am not spoiled. I've done some pretty hard living in some rough places, so you can shelve you nattering nanny scoldings.
A good first step to controlling the wild gambling in the financial markets would be for governments to stop underwriting their debts. Taking away the safety nets and slapping people like Corzine in jail would tamp down much of the irrational exuberance. People aren't nearly so brave when its their own skin in the game.
Ducky,
I didn't intend to say Fintann gave us THE answer, I said he gave us AN answer. You posted as though no one had given any reason -- or even a rationale -- for our considering Israel "an important ally."
Finntann's extensive second answer -- which labelled only his considered opinion -- listed a large number of facts about the checkered history of East-West relations in the Middle East.
Since you obviously disagree with Finntann's answer, why don't you give us your OWN explanation as to why we have friendlier relations with Israel than any other state in the region?
ALL you do is take pot shots at whatever others say in a particularly obnoxious fashion without giving any coherent counter-argument. In that regard you are wasting everyone's time by merely calling undue attention to yourself.
I have long criticized many participants -- at SEVERAL sites -- for paying you too much heed.
I do NOT dismiss you as a "moron," or anything else unworthy. I dislike your persistently insolent, dismissive approach to conversation., but I think you are intelligent.
Tell us more what YOU think instead of robotically splattering dung at everyone in sight. I for one would love to hear your honest, unvarnished opinion of Israel and our relationship with her.
Finntann gives us FACTS not "paranoia." What makes you feel the way you do -- or is that just a pose?
~ FreeThinke
Ducky you insufferable demagogic moron.
Paranoid? Did I say Iran was a threat? Did I even say that it was necessary to maintain a military presence in the eastern Med or the Red Sea?
I made multiple statements of fact regarding Israel, the Suez Canal, previous scenes of military action and their strategic importance to the control of shipping and sea lanes.
If anything, my statemets regarding the disposition of forces in the AOR illustrates that Iran has every reason to be paranoid about western forces arrayed around them.
If I was the President of Iran and honestly acting like it, I'd be building a frigging nuke too, might not be so vocal about it, but I'd be doing it nonetheless.
You asked why Israel was an important ally, I explained why I thought we act the way we do towards Israel. If you refer back to my earlier post you will also see that I call into question the amount of US aid being provided to Israel.
I'll bet the farm on this one: If Iran acts to close access to the Persian Gulf you will see one hell of a military firestorm in the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman.
Post a Comment