News & Analysis
Central Banks 'Good', Ron Paul 'Bad'?
Money Bawl ... Monetary expansion is also, for Paul, a key enabler of what he takes to be our imperialist foreign policy: The creation of money out of thin air allows the government to finance wars, as well as the welfare state. Central banking is a form of central planning, on his theory, and as such "incompatible" with freedom. Paul allows that "not every supporter of the Fed is somehow a participant in a conspiracy to control the world." The rest of them, judging from comments repeatedly made in the book, have fallen for the delusion that expanding the money supply is a "magic means to generate prosperity." Paul finds it baffling that anyone could hold this absurd view, but attributes it to Chairman Bernanke, among others. Almost all of the criticisms Paul makes of central banking, when stated in the axiomatic form he prefers, are false. – National Review Online / Ramesh Ponnuru
Dominant Social Theme: Central banks are good and Ron Paul doesn't know what he's talking about.
Free-Market Analysis: Recently, the National Review Online responded to libertarian Congressman Ron Paul's criticism of central banking. Why anyone would want to defend central banks is beyond us, but Ponnuru, a leading young conservative thinker has taken on the task.
The US is the world's dominant superpower, and the US central banking system is part of how the US as an entity has afforded its current dominance. Since 1971, the world has been on a dollar gold standard, reinforced by the determination of Saudi Sheiks to sell oil for nothing but dollars.
Of course, one could hardly blame the Sheiks. Muammar Gaddafi announced that he wanted to place Africa on a quasi-gold standard and not more than a year later he was dead along with most of his family and his regime deposed.
The dollar reserve system, in fact, has been enforced at the point of a gun. And the presence of the system has allowed the Federal Reserve to print as many dollars as it wishes because other countries need to hold dollars to buy oil. The rest of the world, in other words, is paying to arm and reinforce American superpower status.
Of course, as we regularly point out, it is not "America" that has put this system in place but the Anglosphere power elite families that want to create world government. This powerful group of intergenerational controllers and their enablers and associates apparently created central banking around the world and has access to virtually endless wealth.
This same group, in our view, purveys what we call "directed history" and then creates narratives of this faux-history in its bought-and-paid-for mainstream press. The National Review, as a so-called thought magazine, resides in the upper echelon of this compromised press. It has all the policy signatures of a publication that supports the empire. Chief among these perspectives is support for America's military-industrial complex.
But as central banks come under more significant threat from what we call the Internet Reformation, we're surprised to see publications like the National Review being dragooned into defending the central banking meme as well.
The elites try to control culture and society via the dissemination of dominant social themes – fear-based promotions that frighten middle classes into giving up wealth and power to specially prepared globalist facilities such as the UN.
Chief among globalist memes is the theme of the central bank – the idea that the economy will collapse if central bankers do not "manage" it. This is, of course, nothing but an excuse to create a managed money monopoly, which is just what has occurred.
It is by controlling central banking and their currencies that the elites have gained a chokehold on many important global facilities. Now that central banking itself has come under attack as an injurious and malevolent monopoly, they have begun to push back.
Ponnuru may not know he is being employed to reinforce an elite meme but that's apparently what he's doing. He has posted his screed at a publication whose credibility has been constructed via power elite efforts and cash.
This fits a larger power elite trend we have noticed. Via numerous web sites and articles of late, free-market economics and its tenets are increasingly coming under attack. For the longest time, the elites didn't know how to respond to the growing popularity of Austrian free-market economics on the 'Net but now, apparently, they may have decided on a full-frontal attack.
Via numerous economic schools and facilities – "greenbackers," social credit and even perhaps an elite-implemented gold standard – the din is rising. Austrian economics has been targeted, as it has been before, for destruction.
AgaIn, those employed to destroy the credibility of free-market finance may not fully understand the nature of their employers or the breadth of the historical argument in which they are participating. But it is a most important engagement – and like many top elite memes will be fought within the parameters, partially, of a larger "great conversation."
The elites co-opted this intergenerational conversation in the 20th century. But the Internet Reformation has snatched it back in the 21st century. If the elites cannot reconstruct credible moral and intellectual authority for their economic approaches (and their control of economic activity) their painfully erected structure will inevitably degrade.
The stakes could not be higher. Ponnuru (knowingly or not) is a soldier within a powerful cause. His talents are well-utilized within this context, but his argument fails – as it must – in our view.
The argument cannot succeed, in fact, because central banking is an elite dominant social theme. Its creation was intended to cement control over the world's economy. It does not constitute a free-market evolution and cannot truly be defended as one. Here's some more from the article:
Consider, for example, a world in which the Federal Reserve conducts monetary policy so that the price level rises steadily at 2 percent a year. Savers, knowing this, will demand a higher interest rate to compensate them for the lost value of their money. If the Fed generates more inflation than they expected, as it did in the 1970s, then savers will suffer and borrowers benefit. If it undershoots expectations, as it has over the last few years, the reverse will happen.
The anti-saver redistribution Paul decries is thus not a consequence of monetary expansion per se, but a consequence of an unpredictedly large expansion. For the same reason, monetary expansion does not necessarily lead to less saving. There is no reason to believe that the real burden of home loans would be any larger in a world with 2 percent inflation than in one with 1 percent inflation.
Nor is the wage earner necessarily defrauded. Continuing with our scenario of a steady 2 percent increase in the price level, the prices he pays after ten years are higher but, on average, so are his wages. There is no reason to expect a larger money supply over the long run to affect relative prices — to change the ratio of the cost of a week's supply of vegetables to a week's wages, for example. That's why central banking isn't central planning: It never attempts to fix the relative prices or quantities of all the goods an economy produces, and it cannot cause the total amount of goods an economy produces to hit any particular target.
Did you understand any of this, dear reader? We've read it over several times to try to understand what the heck it means. Well, let's try to unpack it. The idea seems to be that a central bank can manipulate the production of money so that the supply grows at two percent a year.
In fact, this is the first logical fallacy. Does ANYONE seriously believe that a handful of people – even as smart as those running a powerful central bank – can engineer two-percent-a-year growth in a given money supply?
The problem here is that the money HAS TO CIRCULATE. The article rightly glosses right over this important point. The argument is merely asserted: Money will circulate at exactly two percent a year. Reality shows this sort of certainty is simply not valid.
The article glides from one logical fallacy to another: "The anti-saver redistribution Paul decries is thus not a consequence of monetary expansion per se, but a consequence of an unpredictedly large expansion."
Another sentence we had to read several times. The text seems to distinguish between monetary inflation and an unexpectedly large amount of it. Why this is seen as an important distinction is beyond us. The result, anyway, is the same: Monetary inflation, the result of Federal Reserve money-printing, penalizes savers by debasing their holdings.
The point is also made that savers will continue to save within the context of a central bank-initiated monetary inflation. We are thus informed that the central bank's monetary manipulation does not necessarily suck savings out of an economy by penalizing savers.
So what? This is an argument in favor of monetary manipulation? Apparently so. And now we come to even weirder logic. We are informed that "central banking isn't central banking." The article maintains that when central banks cause price inflation, wages follow suit. Thus, the wage earner is "not necessarily defrauded."
Critically, the author writes, "[The central bank] never attempts to fix the relative prices or quantities of all the goods an economy produces, and it cannot cause the total amount of goods an economy produces to hit any particular target.
We are trying to give Ponnuru the benefit of the doubt here but this stuff seems pernicious. As Austrian economics shows us clearly, the business cycle itself is not a neat phenomenon. When a boom (caused by central bank monetary overprinting) turns to bust, businesses suffer and a number of them go out of business.
Homeowners lose their houses and apartments because they have lost their jobs and often they cannot find other jobs during the depth of a "recession" because the economy is not recovering quickly. Over time, as this horrid cycle is repeated, an economy can be virtually denuded, its businesses collapsed, its industry rendered impotent by mal-investments.
The article seems to argue that people should not be angry at this corrosive central-bank initiated business cycle because "after ten years" wages and prices will have regained a semblance of continuity. But in our humble view, this is intellectually dishonest.
In the long-run "we are all dead"... but who really wants a command-and-control economic system that returns to some sort of parity every decade or so? Why do we have to put up with it? Why not let the market work?
The article builds on these illogical arguments with yet more controversial points. It states that "money does not magically produce more good in circulation" and then points out that the increase of goods has occurred within a central banking environment.
But it does not bother to tell us that within the business cycle, the production of many of these goods overshoots. Products and services were surely created unnecessarily within the central bank money-production environment as people – fooled by the circulation of so much money – over-expanded factories and hired too many staff.
He writes: "Paul's contention that the Fed has continuously abetted the expansion of the state — its wars, its welfare, its attacks on civil liberties — is also false. The federal government uses its monopoly over the currency to finance very little of its spending. It gets almost all of its money through taxing and borrowing, and the borrowed funds come from people who are well aware of the need to charge a premium to cover the risks of inflation."
Wow! The vast military machine of the US is financed by taxes and borrowing? Where does the borrowing come from? The US is broke now, busted, but still institutions (coerced, to be sure) lend to the US because of the perception that the Fed can print nearly as much money as it wants in order to pay off US debts. It is the central banking facility that makes so much war-mongering possible.
The article attacks Ron Paul's affection for a "gold standard." But what those who argue against commodity money inevitably do is focus on one that is managed by government and central banks. A REAL gold standard would not be "managed" but would be entirely responsive to the free market itself. Here's how the article ends:
People who see through Paul's illogic, misapprehensions, and paranoia typically dismiss everything he has to say about money. But buried beneath all of that are some reasonable points. The Fed doesn't have a great track record, and keeping it in its present form may not serve us well.
In a recent study for the Cato Institute, three academic specialists in monetary policy noted that the Fed, in its first decades, generated a severe inflation and a severe depression; that it does not seem to have stabilized the economy; and that it has extinguished the kind of benign, productivity- driven deflation that the country sometimes experienced before the Fed's creation ... Central banking is not central planning, but it does reflect an unwarranted confidence in the ability of government officials to engineer beneficial economic outcomes.
This is interesting not for the rebuttal but because it would seem to confirm our belief (our hunch anyway) that elites plan to make big changes in their central banking system. Here's the relevant statement: "The Fed doesn't have a great track record, and keeping it in its present form may not serve us well."
This is symptomatic of the limited hangout we've come to expect from these defenses of central banking. After concocting a mish-mosh of falsehoods and half-truths to justify the existence of monetary price fixing, boosters will concede that the system has it flaws and "keeping it in its present form" may not produce the best possible results.
We don't know what the powers-that-be have in mind to replace central banks with. We do know that because of the Internet, tens and even hundreds of millions are aware that a tiny handful of people have the power to print up trillions of dollars in a single weekend while many others can't pay their mortgages even after a full month of hard work.
This knowledge, covered up in the 20th century, has been widely disseminated in the 21st. Even big words like "quantitative easing" can't hide the real truth of the matter. A tiny power elite owns the world's printing press and does with it as it wishes.
Of course, now that the proverbial cat is out of the bag (again), the elites are bracing for a backlash. They are defending their prerequisites and privileges (seemingly using such magazines as the National Review) and they are struggling to come up with alternatives.
Some of these alternatives in our view include having nation-states take over central banking (which the elites will still manage to control behind the scenes via mercantilism) or setting up some sort of government run gold standard.
Alternatively, the elites may wish to crush the world's economies so thoroughly that people will cry out in pain and allow the system to be continually expanded, creating some sort of global central bank and some sort of international money.
We don't know what the outcome of all this will be. But the elites are not about to let their proverbial golden goose – their control of central banking trillions – simply slip away. These sorts of articles in our view are proof positive that they will fight back using any weapons they can.
In fact, intellectual weapons are very important to them. They are but a handful, far too few to control the world's billions simply by force. They need to justify what they do. But it is a sign of the times that the methodologies for this sort of justification haven't changed since the 20th century.
In the 20th century, they could make the kind of arguments enunciated in this National Review article and the results would simply have been a further accretion of justifications for central banking as it has been historically constructed.
But in the 21st century too much is known about the elites themselves, the conspiracy to set up world government and the central bank mechanisms that are in use. Western elites behind the so-called New World Order continue to have a terrible time dealing with their exposure via the Internet.
Conclusion: They didn't plan it, after all! And they don't know how to stop its exposure. Their tried-and-true damage-control methodologies work best within episodic environments. But the Internet is a process not an episode.
Posted by gabe on 02/20/12 11:48 PM
currently reading "Saving the Queen" a novel written by William F Buckley Jr in 1976 about a young CIA agent as he is recruited from Yale and his 25 year career during the cold war leading up to the Rockefeller commission, as if rockefeller was really hardcore about trying to investigate the CIA... what a joke.
He sure writes as if he spent some time working for team MK Ultra.
Posted by Bischoff on 02/19/12 03:27 AM
Posted by Danny B on 02/18/12 06:24 PM
Bischoff, your clarity, knowledge and insight is always appreciated. Too many analysts see effect without dissecting the causes.
Click to view link
Posted by speedygonzales on 02/18/12 01:46 PM
'Whoever controls the volume of money in our country is absolute master of all industry and commerce…and when you realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate.' - President James Garfield, 2 weeks before his assassination.
Click to view link
Watch this video with Bernanke
Click to view link
Posted by Bischoff on 02/18/12 12:28 PM
"It is most interesting in the context of Ingo's previous insistence that the 1913 version of the Fed enabling act was quite innocent and even an improvement over what had been ... ."
Fed enabling act... ??? I have explained that the currency creation system was based on the Real Bills Doctrine. I have explained that Real Bills are clearing instruments. That the currency created against Real Bills, and circulated in their stead, are clearing slips. I have also explained that in order to stay in business, Banks had to constantly replenish their inventory of Real Bills, because they mature in 90 days. Therefore, bankers always sought out businesses to whom they can discount Real Bills.
The Real Bills Doctrine requires that the amount of currency in circulation always match the value of un-matured Real Bills in the vaults of the banks. To insure that the currency created under the RBD had uniform value throughout the country, the states made sure that the paper currency created against Real Bills was "REDEEMABLE" in gold. The framers wrote a provisions in Section 10, Article I of the Constitution to insure that any means of exchange in payment of debt had the "objective" value of gold and silver. To bind banks to this was the purpose of the state bank charters.
What banks were not allowed to do under the state bank charter was to keep currency in circulation which was in excess to the value of un-matured Real Bills in their vault. Had banks kept excess currency in regular circulation, it would have been quickly discovered by the public as Real Bills were maturing after 89 days. A crooked bank would be faced with a bank run.
However, bankers do not like to see idle currency sit in their vaults. Their solution was to use idle currency for speculating in real estate. This borring short and lending long was not easily discovered.
Most investment trusts which sought out equities and gold bonds into which to place the savings of their clients to earn a return, would never have accepted large amounts of paper currency unless they were 100% convinced of honesty and soundness of the bank which created the currency.
Real estate investments are quite different from investing in equities or gold bonds. "Real estate" investments are not investments in the capital improvements on the land. Real estate investments are a pure speculation on the increase of the value of the unimproved land. This sort of speculation in real estate does not add anything to the creation of wealth, quite to the contrary. It led to periodic booms and busts, the worst of which occurred in 1907.
After the depression of 1907, public pressure forced action on the Congress to reign in rogue banks. The states wanted a regional system of reserve banks, overseen by the Congress, which where franchised by the U.S. government to create a "redeemable" national currency, the Federal Reserve Note. The NY banks struggled to have the Congress award the franchise exclusively to them.
The Griffin book "The Creature from Jekyll Island" focuses on this struggle by the NY banks to secure the exclusive franchise from the U.S. government to create the national currency. It maintains that the NY banks won out in the Congress with the passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Griffin is wrong. The DB is wrong in thinking that Griffin is right.
It was the states which won the battle over the franchise arrangement of the national currency. The twelve independent, regional reserve banks were chartered by the U.S. government to create "redeemable" FRNs against the value of Real Bills (Bills of Exchange) and gold held by their member banks. Only Real Bills and Gold were allowed to be monetized, nothing else. Banks could hold their gold reserves in U.S. Treasury Gold Bonds, but these bonds were non-marketable, and they never left the bank, unless they were used as a means of exchange in payment of debt.
When in the early 1920s, due to the after effects of WW I, the economy took a down turn, Benjamin Strong and the FRBNY formed an "Open-Market Investment Committee" to acquire U.S. Treasury Bonds to sell to the other eleven regional reserve banks for "redeemable" currency. The "redeemable" currency the reserve banks used to acquire UST gold bonds from the OIC was "idle" currency they were required to keep out of circulation under the provisions of the 1913 FRA.
This secondary market transaction by the FRBNY was illegal. Due to the size (amount of deposits) and the influence it wielded, the FRB NY with their intimidating Governor in the person of Bejamin Strong, pulled off the illegal OMOs.
By conducting these OMO against the provisions in the original FRA, the FRBNY in essence established a "central bank" on their own, which they probably had intended all along, according to Griffin.
The Board of Directors of the Federal Reserve System, the oversight arm of the Congress, said nothing.
The OMO by the FRBNY led to the Florida real estate crash in 1925 and to the stock market crash in 1929. Because of the inflation the illegal OMOs created, banks were no longer able or willing to redeem Federal Reserve Notes for gold as required, and in September of 1931 the gold standard was officially abandoned.
Of course, what we got with the National Banking Act of 1935 is exactly the kind of central banking system the FRBNY has been running illegally since the early 1920s. And... ..here we are... ..
"Has Ingo let slip a bit more of the truth than he wished? ... "
That sounds conspiratorial, doen't it... ??? But then, the DB is given to conspiracy theories.
If I have let slip more of the truth, as the DB terms it, it is by pointing out that the secondary market in U.S. Treasury gold bonds amounted to illegal use of idle currency.
It is strange that the DB should term this as "letting the truth slip".
As to Justins question, "For instance, are you saying that there was no secondary market in UST gold bonds before the NYFR began its OMOs? What was the reason for the monetisation of government debt? I would suspect that maybe the government was leaning on the Fed?"
There was no legal secondary market in USTs until 1935. As to the "Fed", it didn't legally exist until 1935 either. It is the central bank we have today which was created with the Banking Act of 1935. The closest thing to today's "Fed" in the 1920s was the FRBNY with their OMOs.
That some federal politicians were quite fond of what the OIC at the FRBNY was doing with their illegal OMOs must be understood by the politics of the time. To explain this in depth requires more space than I have here, except to say that it has to do with exploiting the progressive movement to get the 16th and 17th Amendments to the Constitution ratified.
By the time the question of the rogue acts of the FRBNY came up in the Congress, all U.S. Senators were by then popularly elected (many of them with campaign contributions from the NY banks). States themselves no longer had a voice in the U.S. Congress.
The states NEVER would have agreed to the passage of the National Banking Act of 1935 which modified the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 by standing its intent on its head, and by creating a central bank against which the states had fought from the beginning of the American Republic.
I think ONLY the states can solve the problem now, but they are so tied to Washington, DC and the Fed central bank that it is difficult to effect change. Yet, people are becoming fully aware that this central banking system cannot go on, despite what the politicans and "experts" say. I hope that the other 46 states, which have to pony up to bail out the dead beat states (mired in real estate speculation) like California, Illinois, New York and Michigan, will wake up and repeal the 16th and 17th amendment and kick those central bank loving politicians out of Washington, DC.
Posted by timothyprice on 02/18/12 09:33 AM
This is only marginally related, but shows how much pressure can be put to bear on keeping Paul and any gold standard discredited. This is a helpful perspective. Similar to 9/11, a useful event to implement their consolidation. It is amazingly difficult for the public to see clearly. The media writes history to favor the victors.
Click to view link
Posted by the_IRF on 02/18/12 07:02 AM
Posted by Justin on 02/18/12 04:38 AM
Hi Ingo (I'll call you that since everybody else does)
Your statement - The dirty little secret lies in the fact that the original Federal Reserve Act of 1913 expressly prohibited the marketing of U.S. Bonds (gold bonds) in secondary markets. - is interesting. Can you elaborate?
For instance, are you saying that there was no secondary market in UST gold bonds before the NYFR began its OMOs? What was the reason for the monetisation of government debt? I would suspect that maybe the government was leaning on the Fed?
Reply from The Daily Bell
It is most interesting in the context of Ingo's previous insistence that the 1913 version of the Fed enabling act was quite innocent and even an improvement over what had been .... Has Ingo let slip a bit more of the truth than he wished? ...
Posted by mcfrandy on 02/18/12 12:30 AM
_National Review_ was "founded" in 1955 by Yale Skull-&-Bonesman William F. Buckley, supposedly following a two-year stint in the CIA. (As Murray Rothbard has noted, you didn't quit the CIA back in those days.) Supposedly Buckley had the family wealth to make the magazine work, but it's much more likely it was underwritten by the power elite-controlled CIA to perform propaganda work on anti-New Deal intellectuals and quasi-intellectuals.
The first project of _National Review_ was to convert anti-New Dealers from "isolationists" (i.e. opponents of the US intruding itself throughout the world) to militaristic warriors against Communist regimes ("Cold Warriors"). But who was really behind the Cold War, a phrase supposedly coined by Winston Churchill? Why, none other than the Anglosphere power elite, who had deliberately arranged for Communists to have conquered much of the world at the end of WWII and the next few years. It was all a project by the Anglosphere power elite to massively increase government spending and thereby enrich that same elite, while creating an excuse for the US and NATO to have its fingers stuck into every region of the world.
Eventually the "neoconservatives," a sly combination of the thought of Leon Trotsky and Leo Strauss, took over _National Review_, unabashedly promoting US imperialism against Islamic countries and throughout the world. Naturally, it get its funding from the power elite, so one of the magazine's current projects to try to get latter-day US "conservatives" (which amounts to cheerleaders for "Team America") to buy into the whole central banking system of exploitation of the masses.
Posted by Danny B on 02/17/12 10:45 PM
"steady 2 percent increase in the price level, the prices he pays after ten years are higher but, on average, so are his wages."
Pretty funny guy. His world has automatic wage hikes that keep pace with inflation. He must be a lizard or a Grey.
"If the elites cannot reconstruct credible moral and intellectual authority"
How can one say "Credibility" and "Keynes" in the same sentence?
"Savers, knowing this, will demand a higher interest rate "
Demand all you want,,, you won't get it.
"The article glides from one logical fallacy to another:" kinda like global warming.
Click to view link
It staggers,,, not glides.
"In fact, intellectual weapons are very important to them"
They are forced to "scrape the bottom of the barrel.
"Wow! The vast military machine of the US is financed by taxes and borrowing?"
The Daily Reckoning did a workout on the effect of inflation vs tax. For a person who had to pay a rate of 25% on tax, the inflation tax was 3 times the cost of the direct tax.
The Spanish have started circulation some of their left over Pesetas. Let's see how long that is permitted.
Click to view link
Posted by Chasvoice on 02/17/12 10:25 PM
The author is too gentle with the National Review. The NatRev, launched by Wm. Buckley, is the foremost tabloid of the neoconservatives which can explain it all.
Posted by johnblenkins on 02/17/12 08:03 PM
Hmm Doddge eyebrows. Thanks I,ve been such a fool, taken in by
all that smooth talk of liberty and sound money.
I can only assume you are a gynecolgist: As your talking like a ****.
Posted by NAPpy on 02/17/12 08:00 PM
People used to make the same argument to oppose ending slavery.
"Slavery has always existed, so how could society exist without it?"
Parallel: "Government coercion has always existed, so how can society exist without it?"
Once I realized that coercion is evil, I no longer cared about centrally planning a solution. My job is to stop condoning and supporting the evil.
Posted by NAPpy on 02/17/12 07:54 PM
"Nor is the wage earner necessarily defrauded. Continuing with our scenario of a steady 2 percent increase in the price level, the prices he pays after ten years are higher but, on average, so are his wages. There is no reason to expect a larger money supply over the long run to affect relative prices - to change the ratio of the cost of a week's supply of vegetables to a week's wages, for example. That's why central banking isn't central planning: It never attempts to fix the relative prices or quantities of all the goods an economy produces, and it cannot cause the total amount of goods an economy produces to hit any particular target."
Austrian economics has known for decades that inflation is not neutral. New money enters an economy at a certain point, with certain people. The first people to receive printed money get to buy things at the old prices. The late receivers buy at the inflated prices. Inflation, therefore, allows first receivers to steal purchasing power from late receivers, and is thus inherently fraudulent and unjust.
I know you want to give this guy credit, but he obviously hasn't done his homework or is being deliberately misleading.
Posted by NAPpy on 02/17/12 07:49 PM
"For the longest time, the elites didn't know how to respond to the growing popularity of Austrian free-market economics on the 'Net but now, apparently, they may have decided on a full-frontal attack."
This is good news. I went to college to study economics, and wasn't even aware that the Austrian school existed as an alternative. If they attack, then they open themselves up for rebuttal, and simultaneously make people viewing the debate aware of the alternatives.
I own myself.
I own what I make as property.
Don't coerce others.
Once the debate begins, it's really hard for opponents to keep the moral high ground against simple concepts like the above.
Posted by Abu Aardvark on 02/17/12 07:07 PM
CNN: "Arrests made in Italy after discovery of $6 trillion in fake U.S. bonds (... ) The discovery of the fake bonds -- made to look as if they were printed by the U.S. Federal Reserve in 1934 -- came about as part of an investigation into a local mafia association (... ) Italian authorities, working with their Swiss counterparts, learned about the counterfeit bonds by way of eavesdropping on wiretapped phones, police said. The total of $6 trillion is more than twice the Italy's national debt.
The Italian news agency, ANSA, reported that the bonds were also discovered "alongside copies of the Treaty of Versailles rolled inside lead cylinders." CNN can not independently verify that account.
Click to view link
Posted by Bischoff on 02/17/12 04:39 PM
"... will also make a directly created BOND good without going through the charade of the government submitting the bonds to the Central Bank as collateral for them printing dollar bills, allowing the bankers to collect interest in perpetuity."
The dirty little secret lies in the fact that the original Federal Reserve Act of 1913 expressly prohibited the marketing of U.S. Bonds (gold bonds) in secondary markets.
It was the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, under its Governor Benjamin Strong, which established a Open-Market Investment Committee in the 1920s to coordinate the marketing of U.S. Treasury bonds to the other eleven regional reserve banks in the federal system. This was a direct violation of the provisions within 1913 FRA. The rogue acts by the OIC of the FRBNY were retroactively legalized by an ex-post-facto law passed by the Congress in January 1934 which amended Section 14 of the FRA with Paragraph (b).
The Florida real estate bust in 1925, the 1929 stock market crash and the demise of the gold standard in 1931, were all a direct result of the rogue acts of the OIC by conducting OMOs in violation of the original FRA starting in the early 1920s.
The National Banking Act of 1935 which created the Federal Reserve central bank, instituted the Federal Open Market Committee as part of the central bank and institutionalized the Federal Open Market Trading Desk at the FRBNY. Now U.S. Treasury securities are marketed in a secondary market.
The only U.S. bond today, non-markatable in secondary markets, is the U.S. Savings bond which is sold to subscribers only.
Posted by The Federal Farmer on 02/17/12 03:37 PM
So what you're saying seer is that since liberty has never been tried, and all the government experts say it cannot work, we therefore should remain serfs?
Posted by Jonathan on 02/17/12 03:29 PM
On wikipedia it states, 'Trained in obstetrics and gynecology, Paul then began his own private practice.' but does not say where. Which district was this, and does anyone know the address of his private practice? I agree it is no secret, as it is stated everywhere, but surely verification would is important?
If verification had been required for Obama's story, we may have been able to avoid all the destruction that he has facilitated for his owners.
Posted by Jonathan on 02/17/12 03:18 PM
I didn't realise that.
I see from wikipedia that it says 'A 2002 newsletter of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) listed Paul as a member.', which to me is a rather weird statement. Surely, if a physician with the AAPS, he would be mentioned every year for many years.
Does anyone know where he has worked, specifically? Which hospitals and practices?
Reply from The Daily Bell
He has delivered thousands of babies in his own district. It is no secret ...