Political Forums
Forum Notice

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Money and Finance > Debt


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old June 14th, 2012, 01:10 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 654
Funny how you can learn more about our nation's and the world economy from animated You Tube bears than from the mainstream media and US government officials. And it is done with humor. Please watch and listen to understand what your Federal Reserve is doing to your life and your livelihood.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTUY16CkS-k
Radicalcentrist is offline  
Remove Ads
Old June 14th, 2012, 01:15 PM   #2
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 39,368
End the Fed and create the US National Bank.
waitingtables is offline  
Old June 15th, 2012, 12:16 AM   #3
Not Believing My Eyes....
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 29,805
It's just amazing how this insanity is accepted.



When there is a recession, and the people have less to spend, it's "bad" that prices go down, for instance.... we "need" a little inflation, as the saying goes. But, the prices of everything aren't going down.



The only thing deflating is the Fed's credibility. ROFLMAO Were it only more universally appreciated, RC.



The Treasury Bond buying and selling fiasco.... doesn't this stuff just blow your mind? Great God, how many people know NY Fed Gov. Dudley was a partner at Goldman-Sachs, from which the Fed buys Treasury Bonds when the Fed could, and should, buy them FROM THE TREASURY!!!!!!



This sh*t is going on in the light of day. It's not secret. Anyone can affirm it. It's a crime. It's going on while our pathetic politicians and everyday partisans debate: Austerity vs. Stimulus.



Once you see what's really going on, I mean really see it, you can't go back, can ya?
imaginethat is offline  
Old June 15th, 2012, 12:18 AM   #4
Not Believing My Eyes....
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 29,805
Here's Pt. 2.



I hope Fayt watches Pts. 1 and 2.



[youtube]http://youtu.be/oGIvw7T0GPI[/youtube]
imaginethat is offline  
Old June 15th, 2012, 02:39 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 654
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
Once you see what's really going on, I mean really see it, you can't go back, can ya?


No, there is no going back, IT. You were absolutely right. And because this is done in the perfect light if day, no one raises an eye brow. It is similar to a car alarm going of in a parking lot. Everyone assumes that it is a false alarm. Trust the obvious. That should be obvious in and of itself. But it is not.
Radicalcentrist is offline  
Old June 15th, 2012, 03:49 AM   #6
Not Believing My Eyes....
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 29,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radicalcentrist View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat' timestamp='1339748175' post='407854

Once you see what's really going on, I mean really see it, you can't go back, can ya?


No, there is no going back, IT. You were absolutely right. And because this is done in the perfect light if day, no one raises an eye brow. It is similar to a car alarm going of in a parking lot. Everyone assumes that it is a false alarm. Trust the obvious. That should be obvious in and of itself. But it is not.


Splendid analogy.



A comparable analogy for "going back" would be regaining one's virginity.
imaginethat is offline  
Old June 15th, 2012, 06:28 AM   #7
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 39,368
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/94...s-so-miserable



Sounds like it makes sense.
waitingtables is offline  
Old June 15th, 2012, 12:21 PM   #8
Not Believing My Eyes....
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 29,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables View Post
http://truth-out.org...es-so-miserable



Sounds like it makes sense.


Great article WT, and yeah, with central banks worldwide owned by private parties, no nation has a sovereign fiat currency. Thus, ALL nations are under the control of private bankers, and all efforts to "fix" the economies of nations whose fiat currencies are not sovereign are by definition failures before the efforts even are begun.



And yet, that's the dialogue: What can be done to "fix" the economy ... without fixing the primary problem?



The only honest answer to that question is: Nothing.
imaginethat is offline  
Old June 15th, 2012, 12:39 PM   #9
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 39,368
No we have a sovereign currency here. This part of the article got me:









Quote:



But in what sense does that deficit become a “debt” that we, the players, should worry about paying back? The balance sheet shows that the CIG’s deficit is not our debt at all, but simply a record of the currency that’s been issued into our game. And where did all that “deficit spending” end up? Look again at the balance sheet: it’s in the accounts and assets of the players themselves.


Maybe we should think of something else to call it


When my personal bank account is in “deficit”, that is something I worry about. When a city or state government has a “deficit”, that’s also something to worry about because we have not given our “local” governments the power to issue the currency (they are users of the currency, just like the rest of the players.) When their coffers are empty, they have to make tough choices and cutback on their spending. But when we say our sovereign government has a growing “deficit”, we are badly misleading ourselves if we use the word the way we do when we think of our own bank accounts. What MonopolisMonopoly is showing us is that our sovereign “deficit” is in fact a balance sheet accounting of our own financial wealth. And why we would want to reduce that is a mysterious thing indeed!


MMT versus Neanderthal Economics


Actually, there’s only one reason we’d want to make ourselves miserable by imposing some arbitrary budget rule or fiscal austerity on our game: because we still believe we’re operating under the rules of what might now be called “Neanderthal Economics,” which go something like this:


“We must adhere to the principles of ‘sound money’ for if we do not, our citizens will lose faith in the currency and begin converting it into gold. To prevent this from happening, the sovereign must spend only what it takes in. If it tries to spend too much, its gold reserves will be depleted and it will be forced into bankruptcy just like anyone else.”


And what if, believing this, we actually eliminated the deficit and began running surpluses? Well, in that case it’s obvious our game of Monopolis Monopoly would quickly come to an end: Our CIG would have all its money again, but the players would have nothing with which to play the game. At that point, we might just as well pack everything neatly into the Monopoly box and put it back on the pantry shelf.


The astute player will object that we’ve left out too many things for our game to really mean anything: Private banking, for example, or managing inflation, or bonds and interest rates (if the Fed doesn’t “need” money, then why does it seem to borrow so much of it?) Next time we play Monopolis we could add those in, but they won’t change the basic MMT truths that our simple version of the game has revealed:


A society with a sovereign fiat currency can build any thing or obtain any service it deems necessary or desirable, so long as the citizens of that society are willing and able to build the thing, or provide the service, in exchange for the fiat money. The sovereign deficit, no matter how large it may grow, is not like a shortfall in your own bank account: it is the balance sheet record of the money that was transferred to our side of the ledger.


The implications of this, I believe, are simply astounding.





waitingtables is offline  
Old June 16th, 2012, 10:35 AM   #10
Not Believing My Eyes....
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 29,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables View Post
No we have a sovereign currency here. This part of the article got me:









Quote:



But in what sense does that deficit become a “debt” that we, the players, should worry about paying back? The balance sheet shows that the CIG’s deficit is not our debt at all, but simply a record of the currency that’s been issued into our game. And where did all that “deficit spending” end up? Look again at the balance sheet: it’s in the accounts and assets of the players themselves.

Maybe we should think of something else to call it

When my personal bank account is in “deficit”, that is something I worry about. When a city or state government has a “deficit”, that’s also something to worry about because we have not given our “local” governments the power to issue the currency (they are users of the currency, just like the rest of the players.) When their coffers are empty, they have to make tough choices and cutback on their spending. But when we say our sovereign government has a growing “deficit”, we are badly misleading ourselves if we use the word the way we do when we think of our own bank accounts. What MonopolisMonopoly is showing us is that our sovereign “deficit” is in fact a balance sheet accounting of our own financial wealth. And why we would want to reduce that is a mysterious thing indeed!

MMT versus Neanderthal Economics

Actually, there’s only one reason we’d want to make ourselves miserable by imposing some arbitrary budget rule or fiscal austerity on our game: because we still believe we’re operating under the rules of what might now be called “Neanderthal Economics,” which go something like this:

“We must adhere to the principles of ‘sound money’ for if we do not, our citizens will lose faith in the currency and begin converting it into gold. To prevent this from happening, the sovereign must spend only what it takes in. If it tries to spend too much, its gold reserves will be depleted and it will be forced into bankruptcy just like anyone else.”

And what if, believing this, we actually eliminated the deficit and began running surpluses? Well, in that case it’s obvious our game of Monopolis Monopoly would quickly come to an end: Our CIG would have all its money again, but the players would have nothing with which to play the game. At that point, we might just as well pack everything neatly into the Monopoly box and put it back on the pantry shelf.

The astute player will object that we’ve left out too many things for our game to really mean anything: Private banking, for example, or managing inflation, or bonds and interest rates (if the Fed doesn’t “need” money, then why does it seem to borrow so much of it?) Next time we play Monopolis we could add those in, but they won’t change the basic MMT truths that our simple version of the game has revealed:
[indent=1]

A society with a sovereign fiat currency can build any thing or obtain any service it deems necessary or desirable, so long as the citizens of that society are willing and able to build the thing, or provide the service, in exchange for the fiat money. The sovereign deficit, no matter how large it may grow, is not like a shortfall in your own bank account: it is the balance sheet record of the money that was transferred to our side of the ledger.[/indent]


The implications of this, I believe, are simply astounding.




You've drawn the wrong conclusion from this, in my opinion. This MMT is PR for privately owned central banks, a "don't worry about debt" pacifier.



We do not have a sovereign currency, and this article saying that we do is pure deception. The US has had sovereign currency, in the form of US bank notes. It doesn't have a sovereign currency now. Get out your wallet, pull out a bill. What does it say right across the top on the front?



Federal Reserve Note, a instrument of debt which is not issued by the government of the US.



I hope you get it sometime. Frankly, I don't see how anyone can't get it by watching the OP video, and the part 2 that I posted, but evidently it's possible, and it's possible for an intelligent person like you. The spell cast by the worldwide private banking cartel reminds me of the spell cast by the neocons during the Bush Administration, a spell that still has some under its control.



I'll say it once more WT, because it's true: The United States of America does not have a sovereign currency. It gave away that power to the world banking cartel in 1913. The world banking cartel's US branch is known as the Federal Reserve System, which features ten "neighborhood" branch banks.



The United States of America does not have a sovereign currency. If it did, the deficit and the debt would indeed be accounting exercises. As it is, having a debt and a deficit funded by loans "arranged" by the Federal Reserve mean US taxpayers work a portion of every day for the world banking cartel, as do the citizens of every other nation that has a privately owned central bank. It stinks, but it's true.



If you'd rather not believe this is so, don't worry. There are a lot of folks who'll tell you otherwise. Unfortunately, they are lying.
imaginethat is offline  
Old June 16th, 2012, 03:09 PM   #11
Bye, Ya better behave.
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 13,841
Those big bear things scare me.
Fayt is offline  
Old June 16th, 2012, 03:18 PM   #12
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 39,368
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables' timestamp='1339792763' post='407988

No we have a sovereign currency here. This part of the article got me:









Quote:



But in what sense does that deficit become a “debt” that we, the players, should worry about paying back? The balance sheet shows that the CIG’s deficit is not our debt at all, but simply a record of the currency that’s been issued into our game. And where did all that “deficit spending” end up? Look again at the balance sheet: it’s in the accounts and assets of the players themselves.

Maybe we should think of something else to call it

When my personal bank account is in “deficit”, that is something I worry about. When a city or state government has a “deficit”, that’s also something to worry about because we have not given our “local” governments the power to issue the currency (they are users of the currency, just like the rest of the players.) When their coffers are empty, they have to make tough choices and cutback on their spending. But when we say our sovereign government has a growing “deficit”, we are badly misleading ourselves if we use the word the way we do when we think of our own bank accounts. What MonopolisMonopoly is showing us is that our sovereign “deficit” is in fact a balance sheet accounting of our own financial wealth. And why we would want to reduce that is a mysterious thing indeed!

MMT versus Neanderthal Economics

Actually, there’s only one reason we’d want to make ourselves miserable by imposing some arbitrary budget rule or fiscal austerity on our game: because we still believe we’re operating under the rules of what might now be called “Neanderthal Economics,” which go something like this:

“We must adhere to the principles of ‘sound money’ for if we do not, our citizens will lose faith in the currency and begin converting it into gold. To prevent this from happening, the sovereign must spend only what it takes in. If it tries to spend too much, its gold reserves will be depleted and it will be forced into bankruptcy just like anyone else.”

And what if, believing this, we actually eliminated the deficit and began running surpluses? Well, in that case it’s obvious our game of Monopolis Monopoly would quickly come to an end: Our CIG would have all its money again, but the players would have nothing with which to play the game. At that point, we might just as well pack everything neatly into the Monopoly box and put it back on the pantry shelf.

The astute player will object that we’ve left out too many things for our game to really mean anything: Private banking, for example, or managing inflation, or bonds and interest rates (if the Fed doesn’t “need” money, then why does it seem to borrow so much of it?) Next time we play Monopolis we could add those in, but they won’t change the basic MMT truths that our simple version of the game has revealed:
[indent=1]

A society with a sovereign fiat currency can build any thing or obtain any service it deems necessary or desirable, so long as the citizens of that society are willing and able to build the thing, or provide the service, in exchange for the fiat money. The sovereign deficit, no matter how large it may grow, is not like a shortfall in your own bank account: it is the balance sheet record of the money that was transferred to our side of the ledger.[/indent]


The implications of this, I believe, are simply astounding.




You've drawn the wrong conclusion from this, in my opinion. This MMT is PR for privately owned central banks, a "don't worry about debt" pacifier.



We do not have a sovereign currency, and this article saying that we do is pure deception. The US has had sovereign currency, in the form of US bank notes. It doesn't have a sovereign currency now. Get out your wallet, pull out a bill. What does it say right across the top on the front?



Federal Reserve Note, a instrument of debt which is not issued by the government of the US.



I hope you get it sometime. Frankly, I don't see how anyone can't get it by watching the OP video, and the part 2 that I posted, but evidently it's possible, and it's possible for an intelligent person like you. The spell cast by the worldwide private banking cartel reminds me of the spell cast by the neocons during the Bush Administration, a spell that still has some under its control.



I'll say it once more WT, because it's true: The United States of America does not have a sovereign currency. It gave away that power to the world banking cartel in 1913. The world banking cartel's US branch is known as the Federal Reserve System, which features ten "neighborhood" branch banks.



The United States of America does not have a sovereign currency. If it did, the deficit and the debt would indeed be accounting exercises. As it is, having a debt and a deficit funded by loans "arranged" by the Federal Reserve mean US taxpayers work a portion of every day for the world banking cartel, as do the citizens of every other nation that has a privately owned central bank. It stinks, but it's true.



If you'd rather not believe this is so, don't worry. There are a lot of folks who'll tell you otherwise. Unfortunately, they are lying.






You should really read up a bit on this MMT:



http://www.economonitor.com/lrwray/



http://neweconomicperspectives.org/p/about.html



It's worth the time spent reading it. I disagree with how you would handle Macroeconomic policy.
waitingtables is offline  
Old June 16th, 2012, 07:10 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 654
IT: " I'll say it once more WT, because it's true: The United States of America does not have a sovereign currency. It gave away that power to the world banking cartel in 1913. The world banking cartel's US branch is known as the Federal Reserve System, which features ten "neighborhood" branch banks.



"The United States of America does not have a sovereign currency. If it did, the deficit and the debt would indeed be accounting exercises. As it is, having a debt and a deficit funded by loans "arranged" by the Federal Reserve mean US taxpayers work a portion of every day for the world banking cartel, as do the citizens of every other nation that has a privately owned central bank. It stinks, but it's true."



BRILLIANT, IT. That says it perfectly. There is a bank cartel markup on every dollar of currency we use. And the same can be said of every other unit of currency around the world. All people, all around the world, have to pay their central banks for the use of their currency. And that cost to the people represents revenue to the banks and cost to the people. That cost to the people does not have to be there. And it presents a higher bar for federal tax receipts to have to pay for. So over time, this added cost only serves to indebted the nations of the world to private banks. The more sovereign debt, the more the nations have to borrow. The more they borrow fro private banks, the more interest they pay. But they also pay this hidden currency markup on every unit of currency. So it is to the bank cartel's interest for nations to go to war. Waring nations must borrow private currency to pay for the cost of waging war. Why do we have so many wars? It is because the private banks own not only the means of war production, but also the politicians who make the decisions to go to war. And this is why LBJ lied to go to war in Vietnam, and why Bush lied to go to war in Iraq. The world banking cartel told them to. They were beholden to the banking cartel and therefore had to do what the cartel said do. Another name we might use to describe this cartel, is what Eisenhower termed the military industrial complex. It is so complex that it almost defies description.



Thanks for fueling the fire of the mind. That connected a lot of dots.
Radicalcentrist is offline  
Old June 16th, 2012, 08:29 PM   #14
Bye, Ya better behave.
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 13,841
Waitingtables, I wouldn't wast my time with these Libertarian Federal Reserve evangelists. No matter what you say or try to explain, they will disagree with you. You can even come to an understanding with them and point out rational solutions and they will still find something to disagree with. You can even agree with 100% of what they're proscribing and they will still accusing you of not understanding. These guys will never understand that their so called experience on this issue is just a new name they call their mistakes.
Fayt is offline  
Old June 16th, 2012, 11:44 PM   #15
Not Believing My Eyes....
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 29,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat' timestamp='1339871756' post='408049

[quote name='waitingtables' timestamp='1339792763' post='407988']

No we have a sovereign currency here. This part of the article got me:









Quote:



But in what sense does that deficit become a “debt” that we, the players, should worry about paying back? The balance sheet shows that the CIG’s deficit is not our debt at all, but simply a record of the currency that’s been issued into our game. And where did all that “deficit spending” end up? Look again at the balance sheet: it’s in the accounts and assets of the players themselves.

Maybe we should think of something else to call it

When my personal bank account is in “deficit”, that is something I worry about. When a city or state government has a “deficit”, that’s also something to worry about because we have not given our “local” governments the power to issue the currency (they are users of the currency, just like the rest of the players.) When their coffers are empty, they have to make tough choices and cutback on their spending. But when we say our sovereign government has a growing “deficit”, we are badly misleading ourselves if we use the word the way we do when we think of our own bank accounts. What MonopolisMonopoly is showing us is that our sovereign “deficit” is in fact a balance sheet accounting of our own financial wealth. And why we would want to reduce that is a mysterious thing indeed!

MMT versus Neanderthal Economics

Actually, there’s only one reason we’d want to make ourselves miserable by imposing some arbitrary budget rule or fiscal austerity on our game: because we still believe we’re operating under the rules of what might now be called “Neanderthal Economics,” which go something like this:

“We must adhere to the principles of ‘sound money’ for if we do not, our citizens will lose faith in the currency and begin converting it into gold. To prevent this from happening, the sovereign must spend only what it takes in. If it tries to spend too much, its gold reserves will be depleted and it will be forced into bankruptcy just like anyone else.”

And what if, believing this, we actually eliminated the deficit and began running surpluses? Well, in that case it’s obvious our game of Monopolis Monopoly would quickly come to an end: Our CIG would have all its money again, but the players would have nothing with which to play the game. At that point, we might just as well pack everything neatly into the Monopoly box and put it back on the pantry shelf.

The astute player will object that we’ve left out too many things for our game to really mean anything: Private banking, for example, or managing inflation, or bonds and interest rates (if the Fed doesn’t “need” money, then why does it seem to borrow so much of it?) Next time we play Monopolis we could add those in, but they won’t change the basic MMT truths that our simple version of the game has revealed:
[indent=1]

A society with a sovereign fiat currency can build any thing or obtain any service it deems necessary or desirable, so long as the citizens of that society are willing and able to build the thing, or provide the service, in exchange for the fiat money. The sovereign deficit, no matter how large it may grow, is not like a shortfall in your own bank account: it is the balance sheet record of the money that was transferred to our side of the ledger.[/indent]


The implications of this, I believe, are simply astounding.




You've drawn the wrong conclusion from this, in my opinion. This MMT is PR for privately owned central banks, a "don't worry about debt" pacifier.



We do not have a sovereign currency, and this article saying that we do is pure deception. The US has had sovereign currency, in the form of US bank notes. It doesn't have a sovereign currency now. Get out your wallet, pull out a bill. What does it say right across the top on the front?



Federal Reserve Note, a instrument of debt which is not issued by the government of the US.



I hope you get it sometime. Frankly, I don't see how anyone can't get it by watching the OP video, and the part 2 that I posted, but evidently it's possible, and it's possible for an intelligent person like you. The spell cast by the worldwide private banking cartel reminds me of the spell cast by the neocons during the Bush Administration, a spell that still has some under its control.



I'll say it once more WT, because it's true: The United States of America does not have a sovereign currency. It gave away that power to the world banking cartel in 1913. The world banking cartel's US branch is known as the Federal Reserve System, which features ten "neighborhood" branch banks.



The United States of America does not have a sovereign currency. If it did, the deficit and the debt would indeed be accounting exercises. As it is, having a debt and a deficit funded by loans "arranged" by the Federal Reserve mean US taxpayers work a portion of every day for the world banking cartel, as do the citizens of every other nation that has a privately owned central bank. It stinks, but it's true.



If you'd rather not believe this is so, don't worry. There are a lot of folks who'll tell you otherwise. Unfortunately, they are lying.






You should really read up a bit on this MMT:



http://www.economonitor.com/lrwray/



http://neweconomicpe...rg/p/about.html



It's worth the time spent reading it. I disagree with how you would handle Macroeconomic policy.

[/quote]





That's odd WT, because I haven't mentioned how I would handle macroeconomic policy. I don't see any need to tie currency to gold, or anything in particular. The fact is, if a currency is accepted by all members in a national economy, that is what gives the currency its value.



But, I cannot understand why you see the good part of this MMT but fail to see the treachery also in the explanation. National debt is an accounting entry only if the government directly issues the currency. This is not an esoteric concept, WT. The privately owned central banks of the world are unnecessary middlemen. They are dangerous middlemen, because at any time, they can decide in their private, secretly held meetings to increase or decrease the money supply.



And history shows, that's exactly what they do, increase the money supply and create the bubble, decrease the money supply and create the recession. Over, and over again they've done this. And it doesn't stop there. They set the interest rates on loans and savings. This is their power most to be feared. It is the power to make debt unmanageable.



Seriously, did you watch the videos? They explain why we don't want, and don't need, privately owned central banks. The bit about the Fed buying Treasury bonds from Goldman-Sachs at a premium rather than directly from the Treasury should be enough to convince anyone of the institutionalized deception and theft of the Federal Reserve System.



Here's another explanation. If you can find error in it, please point it out.



[youtube]http://youtu.be/Oe0fGXzKb1o[/youtube]
imaginethat is offline  
Old June 17th, 2012, 12:10 AM   #16
Not Believing My Eyes....
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 29,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayt View Post
Waitingtables, I wouldn't wast my time with these Libertarian Federal Reserve evangelists. No matter what you say or try to explain, they will disagree with you. You can even come to an understanding with them and point out rational solutions and they will still find something to disagree with. You can even agree with 100% of what they're proscribing and they will still accusing you of not understanding. These guys will never understand that their so called experience on this issue is just a new name they call their mistakes.


I've given up on discussing this issue with you. Why? You - unilaterally - declare we agree, and then repeat the teachings you have received from Keynesian college professors.



Unilateral declarations of agreement are horribly dishonest, and here you are doing it again. You and I agreeing on the role of privately controlled central banks is impossible because you have never given me one reason to think you do understand the role of privately owned central banks. You just say "nationalize the Fed," whatever the hell that means, claim an intellectual superiority, and then it's more Keynesian yada yada yada that I've heard dozens of times, and with which I do not agree.



Please don't go back and repost any discussions we've had. Yes we agree on some points, but we've never agreed 100 percent, and you most certainly never have agreed 100 percent with my explanations of the market and political distortions created by privately owned central banks that have a monopoly on creating currency and setting interest rates. Nor have we ever agreed that all attempts to fix the economy are futile without the US government reclaiming its constitutionally delegated power to create and manage currency. In fact, we've always disagree on that point.



So really, for the sake of an honest friendship, I wish you would stop saying you and I agree 100 percent. That is demonstrably false.
imaginethat is offline  
Old June 17th, 2012, 08:58 AM   #17
Bye, Ya better behave.
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 13,841
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayt' timestamp='1339907359' post='408069

Waitingtables, I wouldn't wast my time with these Libertarian Federal Reserve evangelists. No matter what you say or try to explain, they will disagree with you. You can even come to an understanding with them and point out rational solutions and they will still find something to disagree with. You can even agree with 100% of what they're proscribing and they will still accusing you of not understanding. These guys will never understand that their so called experience on this issue is just a new name they call their mistakes.


I've given up on discussing this issue with you. Why? You - unilaterally - declare we agree, and then repeat the teachings you have received from Keynesian college professors.



Unilateral declarations of agreement are horribly dishonest, and here you are doing it again. You and I agreeing on the role of privately controlled central banks is impossible because you have never given me one reason to think you do understand the role of privately owned central banks. You just say "nationalize the Fed," whatever the hell that means, claim an intellectual superiority, and then it's more Keynesian yada yada yada that I've heard dozens of times, and with which I do not agree.





Please don't go back and repost any discussions we've had. Yes we agree on some points, but we've never agreed 100 percent, and you most certainly never have agreed 100 percent with my explanations of the market and political distortions created by privately owned central banks that have a monopoly on creating currency and setting interest rates. Nor have we ever agreed that all attempts to fix the economy are futile without the US government reclaiming its constitutionally delegated power to create and manage currency. In fact, we've always disagree on that point.



So really, for the sake of an honest friendship, I wish you would stop saying you and I agree 100 percent. That is demonstrably false.




Would you support the ability to print currency (or fractional banking) be taken away from private hands and regulated under the purview of the U.S. Department of Treasure? Nationalizing the 12 Fed banks and printing money only when the population grow and when commerce grows. The problem isn't so much fiat money, but the PRIVATE issue of fiat money. The value of the money should be defined only by the government, but we should not go back to the gold backed currency. After we have taken that power back from the privately own banks, we put currency back into the economy by investing in infrastructure, schools, healthcare, social programs and etc. This is make us a more prosperous country with an healthy economy to boot.



What do you disagree with?
Fayt is offline  
Old June 17th, 2012, 12:45 PM   #18
Not Believing My Eyes....
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 29,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayt View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat' timestamp='1339920644' post='408076

[quote name='Fayt' timestamp='1339907359' post='408069']

Waitingtables, I wouldn't wast my time with these Libertarian Federal Reserve evangelists. No matter what you say or try to explain, they will disagree with you. You can even come to an understanding with them and point out rational solutions and they will still find something to disagree with. You can even agree with 100% of what they're proscribing and they will still accusing you of not understanding. These guys will never understand that their so called experience on this issue is just a new name they call their mistakes.


I've given up on discussing this issue with you. Why? You - unilaterally - declare we agree, and then repeat the teachings you have received from Keynesian college professors.



Unilateral declarations of agreement are horribly dishonest, and here you are doing it again. You and I agreeing on the role of privately controlled central banks is impossible because you have never given me one reason to think you do understand the role of privately owned central banks. You just say "nationalize the Fed," whatever the hell that means, claim an intellectual superiority, and then it's more Keynesian yada yada yada that I've heard dozens of times, and with which I do not agree.





Please don't go back and repost any discussions we've had. Yes we agree on some points, but we've never agreed 100 percent, and you most certainly never have agreed 100 percent with my explanations of the market and political distortions created by privately owned central banks that have a monopoly on creating currency and setting interest rates. Nor have we ever agreed that all attempts to fix the economy are futile without the US government reclaiming its constitutionally delegated power to create and manage currency. In fact, we've always disagree on that point.



So really, for the sake of an honest friendship, I wish you would stop saying you and I agree 100 percent. That is demonstrably false.




Would you support the ability to print currency (or fractional banking) be taken away from private hands and regulated under the purview of the U.S. Department of Treasure? Nationalizing the 12 Fed banks and printing money only when the population grow and when commerce grows. The problem isn't so much fiat money, but the PRIVATE issue of fiat money. The value of the money should be defined only by the government, but we should not go back to the gold backed currency. After we have taken that power back from the privately own banks, we put currency back into the economy by investing in infrastructure, schools, healthcare, social programs and etc. This is make us a more prosperous country with an healthy economy to boot.



What do you disagree with?

[/quote]



If you really mean what you wrote, and if you think that without doing all of the above FIRST that any and every "solution" is built upon quicksand, and thus is pure partisan politics and completely pointless, we're in agreement.



If you think taking the power to create currency and set interest rates away from the private world bankers is the first step, then, it's the first time you've ever agreed with me on that point .... and, I'm glad you've seen the light on this.
imaginethat is offline  
Old June 17th, 2012, 07:10 PM   #19
Bye, Ya better behave.
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 13,841
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayt' timestamp='1339952286' post='408082

[quote name='imaginethat' timestamp='1339920644' post='408076']

[quote name='Fayt' timestamp='1339907359' post='408069']

Waitingtables, I wouldn't wast my time with these Libertarian Federal Reserve evangelists. No matter what you say or try to explain, they will disagree with you. You can even come to an understanding with them and point out rational solutions and they will still find something to disagree with. You can even agree with 100% of what they're proscribing and they will still accusing you of not understanding. These guys will never understand that their so called experience on this issue is just a new name they call their mistakes.


I've given up on discussing this issue with you. Why? You - unilaterally - declare we agree, and then repeat the teachings you have received from Keynesian college professors.



Unilateral declarations of agreement are horribly dishonest, and here you are doing it again. You and I agreeing on the role of privately controlled central banks is impossible because you have never given me one reason to think you do understand the role of privately owned central banks. You just say "nationalize the Fed," whatever the hell that means, claim an intellectual superiority, and then it's more Keynesian yada yada yada that I've heard dozens of times, and with which I do not agree.





Please don't go back and repost any discussions we've had. Yes we agree on some points, but we've never agreed 100 percent, and you most certainly never have agreed 100 percent with my explanations of the market and political distortions created by privately owned central banks that have a monopoly on creating currency and setting interest rates. Nor have we ever agreed that all attempts to fix the economy are futile without the US government reclaiming its constitutionally delegated power to create and manage currency. In fact, we've always disagree on that point.



So really, for the sake of an honest friendship, I wish you would stop saying you and I agree 100 percent. That is demonstrably false.




Would you support the ability to print currency (or fractional banking) be taken away from private hands and regulated under the purview of the U.S. Department of Treasure? Nationalizing the 12 Fed banks and printing money only when the population grow and when commerce grows. The problem isn't so much fiat money, but the PRIVATE issue of fiat money. The value of the money should be defined only by the government, but we should not go back to the gold backed currency. After we have taken that power back from the privately own banks, we put currency back into the economy by investing in infrastructure, schools, healthcare, social programs and etc. This is make us a more prosperous country with an healthy economy to boot.



What do you disagree with?

[/quote]



If you really mean what you wrote, and if you think that without doing all of the above FIRST that any and every "solution" is built upon quicksand, and thus is pure partisan politics and completely pointless, we're in agreement.



If you think taking the power to create currency and set interest rates away from the private world bankers is the first step, then, it's the first time you've ever agreed with me on that point .... and, I'm glad you've seen the light on this.

[/quote]



Yes, but would you support the president to do nothing and just let the Bush tax cuts expire I think, December of this year?
Fayt is offline  
Old June 17th, 2012, 08:16 PM   #20
Not Believing My Eyes....
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 29,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayt View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat' timestamp='1339965906' post='408090

[quote name='Fayt' timestamp='1339952286' post='408082']

[quote name='imaginethat' timestamp='1339920644' post='408076']

[quote name='Fayt' timestamp='1339907359' post='408069']

Waitingtables, I wouldn't wast my time with these Libertarian Federal Reserve evangelists. No matter what you say or try to explain, they will disagree with you. You can even come to an understanding with them and point out rational solutions and they will still find something to disagree with. You can even agree with 100% of what they're proscribing and they will still accusing you of not understanding. These guys will never understand that their so called experience on this issue is just a new name they call their mistakes.


I've given up on discussing this issue with you. Why? You - unilaterally - declare we agree, and then repeat the teachings you have received from Keynesian college professors.



Unilateral declarations of agreement are horribly dishonest, and here you are doing it again. You and I agreeing on the role of privately controlled central banks is impossible because you have never given me one reason to think you do understand the role of privately owned central banks. You just say "nationalize the Fed," whatever the hell that means, claim an intellectual superiority, and then it's more Keynesian yada yada yada that I've heard dozens of times, and with which I do not agree.





Please don't go back and repost any discussions we've had. Yes we agree on some points, but we've never agreed 100 percent, and you most certainly never have agreed 100 percent with my explanations of the market and political distortions created by privately owned central banks that have a monopoly on creating currency and setting interest rates. Nor have we ever agreed that all attempts to fix the economy are futile without the US government reclaiming its constitutionally delegated power to create and manage currency. In fact, we've always disagree on that point.



So really, for the sake of an honest friendship, I wish you would stop saying you and I agree 100 percent. That is demonstrably false.




Would you support the ability to print currency (or fractional banking) be taken away from private hands and regulated under the purview of the U.S. Department of Treasure? Nationalizing the 12 Fed banks and printing money only when the population grow and when commerce grows. The problem isn't so much fiat money, but the PRIVATE issue of fiat money. The value of the money should be defined only by the government, but we should not go back to the gold backed currency. After we have taken that power back from the privately own banks, we put currency back into the economy by investing in infrastructure, schools, healthcare, social programs and etc. This is make us a more prosperous country with an healthy economy to boot.



What do you disagree with?

[/quote]



If you really mean what you wrote, and if you think that without doing all of the above FIRST that any and every "solution" is built upon quicksand, and thus is pure partisan politics and completely pointless, we're in agreement.



If you think taking the power to create currency and set interest rates away from the private world bankers is the first step, then, it's the first time you've ever agreed with me on that point .... and, I'm glad you've seen the light on this.

[/quote]



Yes, but would you support the president to do nothing and just let the Bush tax cuts expire I think, December of this year?

[/quote]



See, you lied. You're deceptively trying to get me to agree with something we supposedly just "agreed" would be pointless as long as world bankers in general and the Fed in specific control the currency and interest rates.



My agreeing with that is not happening. And, you and I do not agree 100 percent on what needs to be done to remedy our economic ills ... like I said to begin with.
imaginethat is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Money and Finance > Debt

Tags
bears, couple, easing, explained, humorously, quantitative


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Poll shows raw feelings easing over health law msnbc.com Current Events 2 January 17th, 2011 05:43 PM
House to vote on bill easing stem cell restrictions CNN Current Events 1 June 7th, 2007 08:12 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.