jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (23 posts)

Central Banking and fraud

  1. SparklingJewel profile image77
    SparklingJewelposted 6 years ago

    Blame the Fed for the Financial Crisis ... The Fed fails to grasp that an interest rate is a price, the price of time. Attempting to manipulate that price is as destructive as any other government price control. To know what is wrong with the Federal Reserve, one must first understand the nature of money. Money is like any other good in our economy that emerges from the market to satisfy the needs and wants of consumers. Its particular usefulness is that it helps facilitate indirect exchange, making it easier for us to buy and sell goods because there is a common way of measuring their value. Money is not a government phenomenon, and it need not and should not be managed by government. When central banks like the Fed manage money they are engaging in price fixing, which leads not to prosperity but to disaster. The Federal Reserve has caused every single boom and bust that has occurred in this country since the bank's creation in 1913 – Congressman Ron Paul/ Wall Street Journal

    http://www.thedailybell.com/3117/Ron-Pa … ice-Fixing

    This is the genius of someone like Dr. Ron Paul. We could never have written this statement so clearly and concisely (though we try every day). The peculiar brilliance of Dr. Paul lies in his adamant insistence on pointing out the REAL problem of the modern world – its endless distortions of money – and his ability to put it into words that everyone can understand.  DB

    These banking entities are not the REAL problem, of course. They are merely the distributors for CENTRAL BANKING. They are only additional EVIDENCES of the problem, which is central banking itself. Without money manipulation, as Murray Rothbard was fond of saying, economies would likely revert to gold (and silver) and people's savings would gently appreciate as technology drove down cost. DB

  2. EmpressFelicity profile image74
    EmpressFelicityposted 6 years ago

    Boom and bust existed before central banking - ever hear about "tulip mania"?

    That said, it amazes me that the mainstream media never mentions fractional reserve lending (and central banks' role in it), which I agree is a major disaster in the making - we just haven't seen its logical conclusion yet, IMO; it'll be nasty.

    I think perhaps if central banking didn't exist and you went back to gold- and silver-backed currencies you'd still have boom and bust, but the cycles would be shorter and less dramatic.

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image75
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Actually, Tulip Mania can easily be traced back to monetary inflation.



      1. EmpressFelicity profile image74
        EmpressFelicityposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Interesting stuff! (Bloody long though lol)

        To summarise, the tulip mania phenomenon was able to happen in Holland because it actually had a "sound money" policy whereas other countries didn't, a fact that encouraged a flow of gold, silver and other metals into Holland. When some of this was minted as money, it increased the money supply. Bigger money supply = inflation, with tulip mania being one manifestation of that.

        So if the US followed a policy of re-adopting the gold standard and doing away with fractional reserve banking, then money would flow into the US away from other countries and perversely, you'd end up with the same kind of inflation and speculative bubbles that you see with the existing fractional reserve system. Or am I missing something?

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image75
          Evan G Rogersposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          One important sentence (easily overlooked) would be this:

          "The bank was to facilitate trade, suppress usury, and have a monopoly on all trading of specie."

          Monopolies are always bad - but they're always created through government.

          Also, it seemed that a lot of that gold was "newly discovered" gold in from the New World. (Translation: rape, pillage, murder, theft).

          So, it was a kind of artificial inflation of money supply (much like we have today!). Minus the gore, this is basically what we have going on right now: steal wealth from a civilization and then give it out at a reduced cost to the consumer. Bubbles HAVE to ensue from such behavior.

          And also, "Free coinage laws then served to create more money from this increased supply of coin and bullion, than what the market demanded."

          The laws created an unnatural market situation.

          Central Banks + illegal theft of wealth + government intervention = boom & bust

          Sounds about right!

          1. EmpressFelicity profile image74
            EmpressFelicityposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            OK, if you got rid of central banks and government intervention, then presumably that means under your system, anyone with the resources would be allowed to create their own precious metal-based currency?

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image75
              Evan G Rogersposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              They'd be allowed to, but you'd have to convince people to use it.

              You'd do that by providing a consistently un-inflated money, or by consistently having a reserve ratio at your bank.

      2. Mikel G Roberts profile image81
        Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years agoin reply to this


    2. Brie Hoffman profile image64
      Brie Hoffmanposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      The Media is owned by these people.

  3. lovemychris profile image56
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    It's called usury...and the Christian and Muslim religions forbid it.....

    ever think that's WHY they are pushed/manipulated to fighting each other? I do.

    Now come on with the slurs and accusations.....I've about had enough of that too.

    Truth is truth...deal with it.

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image75
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Interest rates aren't bad. They're a price. Just because some people who wanted to rule the world thought it was a bad thing doesn't mean it was.

      Here's an example:

      Someone stole your wallet, and the rent is due tomorrow. You're a dollar short, and want help. I could lend you one. But there's a lot of risk involved - if you don't pay me back then I'm screwed. Also, I could easily just NOT lend you money and use the money myself -- you have to make it worth MY time to take a risk on you.

      So, you promise me some EXTRA money in the future.

      It's not a bad thing, it allows for fantastic things.

      The bad thing is just when the prices are artificially manipulated by politicians.

      Usury is only bad if you think everyone should ALWAYS be charitable. However, for those who aren't idiots or rubes, interest rates and credit ratings were developed by the market to help decide who is best able to handle a society's wealth.

      ... the politicians saw this, and manipulate it on a daily basis to stay in power.

  4. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 6 years ago

    The fed is privately owned. So is the fed operated more for the private owners or for the people?

  5. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 6 years ago

    The politicians have nothing to do with it. That would be assuming they had half a brain.

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image75
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Who do you think made "the printing of money" a private monopoly?

      It wasn't magical faeries with pixie dust.

      It was Wilson.

  6. lovemychris profile image56
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this Loan-Sharking, and don't the Mafia go to prison for this?

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image75
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      People willingly borrowed money at 500% interest rates?

      Sounds like the people themselves are idiots.

      You can't legislate a cure to idiocy.

      1. lovemychris profile image56
        lovemychrisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        You are telling me that the nice, sweet, honest Bankster lenders said : "Now mr and mrs...whatever....you will pay 500% interest if you take this sub-prime loan."  ???

        Ahahahaha. Nope, I don't think so.
        I think they said "Mr and mrs whatever....this loan is the best for you personally and financially. If you took a regular loan, you would be paying more, and taking longer to pay it off. I recommend you take this sub-prime. That's what I would do."

        "Well--honey.....he/she's the expert........"

        No, not stupid, not greedy, just trusting in the bank as an institution that works for them.

        Not their fault the scumbags were on the take.

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image75
          Evan G Rogersposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          If you're too much of an idiot to realize that you don't have enough money to pay off a debt you're about to incur, then it's your own fault.

          "Der, I only make $30,000 a year, and I spend $20k on living. I know! I'll buy a new house for $350,000! Der!"

          Sorry, no sympathy from me.

  7. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 6 years ago

    Not when the loan-sharks control the government. And control of the money is control of the government.

    1. starme77 profile image78
      starme77posted 6 years agoin reply to this


  8. MikeNV profile image82
    MikeNVposted 6 years ago

    Your post proves one glaring point.


    Paul is the only Candidate that is willing to talk about it. If you don't think the other candidates understand they are puppets to their monetary overlords you would be mistaken.  They enjoy the perks of being part of the privelidged elite.

    The FACT however is the debt model has failed and is not sustainable.  The crash will come... it's only a matter of time.  By then the Bankers will own everything.  They will have title to all the land and all the companie assets.  So when the crash happens and the new system is put into place whatever it is... you can be assured the same people will be on top.

    Paul if elected would likely be assasinated.

    This years budget deficit is already $1.3 Trillion (Most people are clueless about that as well... they don't know the difference between National Debt and a Deficit).  Clinton was always claming a "Budget Surplus" but the National Debt rose every year under Clinton as well.

    So this year like every year of Obama the Budget Defict is over a Trillion.  To put that in better perspective in 1980 the National Debt was only 1 Trillion.

    The numbers are now so high they can not be repaid. EVER.

    Looking just at this years spending, Income taxes would have to be raised to 47% just to cover this year so far, likely over 50% by the end of the year (2 months left).  And that would have to include everyone... from the CEO to the kid working at McDonalds.

    Yet when the election rolls around people will buy into the lie yet again.  And sadly Paul will the only viable option will be rejected by the Ignorant again.

    Enjoy the Crash. It's coming.

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image75
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      "Paul if elected would likely be assasinated."

      This truly is my biggest fear of Ron Paul's running for president.

      He'll be murdered before his first term is up, and it'll be blamed on his old age.

      Ron Paul 2012.

      1. SparklingJewel profile image77
        SparklingJewelposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        don't even think that way...pray for his protection and for those that he chooses to work with him