what are we going to do?

LOL

Is that you Kareem?

Originally posted by Snouter
LOL

Is that you Kareem?

Brother,..

i think i remember you on a post before askin me the same thing.

relax its not your boy Kareem.




its the one and only,

-robb sneak

"your brother from another mother"

I am guessing a new old fart will be put in that position and life will go on?

Personally, I am rather hoping the SOB will die. He definitely has it coming.

Originally posted by 86Dude
Personally, I am rather hoping the SOB will die. He definitely has it coming.

well yeah sure,..lol

hes old as fu*k,...:D

but why does he have it coming to him?

the man is a genius, and believe it or not, he's pretty much holding our economy together.

do some research on the guy,...
its interesting

Originally posted by robb sneak
the man is a genius, and believe it or not, he's pretty much holding our economy together.

do some research on the guy,...
its interesting

Greenscam raised interest rates years ago to reduce what he called the "wealth effect." He believed that if people made money in the stock market, they would purchase more goods and services and this action would somehow cause inflation. He believed if he didn't reduce people's wealth, taxes should be raised to keep their wealth down. He succeeded in reducing people's wealth. Now when he manipulates the interest rate, it has no effect at all on the stock market. The effort to put manipulate free people's income can only be described as socialist.

He is amusing to listen to sometimes though and watch the politicians kiss his ass when they ask him questions. He uses many more words to explain a simple concept than what it would take a normal person. The effect is to cloud the issue which is the intent.

In 1966, Greenscam was somewhat outspoken against the Fed and he believed in the gold standard. After he served on the board of international banking firm J. P. Morgan, he became silent on the issue and did nothing to anger the creature he now served.

Originally posted by Snouter
In 1966, Greenscam was somewhat outspoken against the Fed and he believed in the gold standard. After he served on the board of international banking firm J. P. Morgan, he became silent on the issue and did nothing to anger the creature he now served.

Hmm. Interesting point.

My understanding - from what I've read about the man - is that Greenspan used to have a primarily libertarian outlook (free markets, gold standard, etc.) economically, politically, and on and on.

He claims to be a fan of Ayn Rand, but I don't see that expressed in his actions as it relates to his overall economic decisions...

Originally posted by robb sneak


well yeah sure,..lol

hes old as fu*k,...:D

but why does he have it coming to him?

the man is a genius, and believe it or not, he's pretty much holding our economy together.

do some research on the guy,...
its interesting

It isn't Greenscam per se, rather the federal reserve that he leads. He is an ******* by voluntary association. I would rather have elected officials running the economy as put forth in the constitution than some untouchable, self serving banker. I will hate his replacement equally.

So trying to create a little bit more social equality is a bad thing?

Originally posted by Stage Monster
So trying to create a little bit more social equality is a bad thing?

Please explain your definition of social equality, why it is a good thing, and how that can be achieved by the mechanics of redistributing wealth.

It seems like stealing money from someone and giving it to someone else does not creates equality, but creates resentment on both sides of the equation. The person receiving the stolen (redistributed) money resents the victim(taxpayer) and demands even more. The victim of the theft (redistribution) cannot understand why the money was stolen and is angry about it because it is unjust. The victim in essence becomes a slave to the thief.

Originally posted by Stage Monster
So trying to create a little bit more social equality is a bad thing?

The function isn't intended to be social equality, but rather stability.

If you limit the strong you can potentially avoid the weak that comes as a response.

Nobody's perfect, Greenspan included, but we've avoided the depressions and market crashes that were occuring every 20 years or so on a cyclical basis prior to FDR.

Recessions are a far cry better than bread lines.

Justin

it's amazing to me that someone who isnt even elected has so much power over the lives of US citizens.

Why inst his position elected again?

Originally posted by RightWingZealot
it's amazing to me that someone who isnt even elected has so much power over the lives of US citizens.

Why inst his position elected again?

Supreme Court has 9 unlected officials, and hold the "highest" say in the land in terms of checking functions.

Food for thought.

Justin

It's not an elected position because if it was, then the politics would enter into the mix, and instead of a person doing what they think is best for the economy (independent of party politics), we'd wind up with a person in office who would make economic choices that affect our national economy immediately and directly based solely off of what the party in power would like to see done.

This way, we get a non-political economist in charge of the economy.

And Justin, you're right, it is stability over equality.

Originally posted by Unrepresented
Supreme Court has 9 unlected officials, and hold the "highest" say in the land in terms of checking functions.


But having a Supreme Court is what the US Constitution demands. What does Article I, Section 8 in the US Constitution say about coining and regulating the value of money? It says Congress is supposed to have that power, not an unaccountable international banker.

Federal Reserve Board and Greenspan

....Let us recall the history of formation of the FRB. In 1913, the Federal Reserve Act was passed by Congress and signed by President Wilson. This reform originated from the alarming epidemic of bank failures and financial panic of 1907.

The country was divided into 12 Federal Reserve districts. Each has its own Federal Reserve Bank headquartered in New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Boston, Cleveland, St. Louis, Kansas City, Atlanta, Richmond, Dallas and Minneapolis.

The Federal Reserve Board in Washington, with the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks, constitutes American ``central banks¡¯¡¯. The FRB is directly responsible to Congress.

A central bank is a bank that the government sets up to help handle its transactions; to coordinate and control commercial banks; and most important, to help control the nation¡¯s money supply and credit conditions.

By law, the FRB has three main responsibilities, to achieve stable prices and maintain employment, and to maintain moderate interest rates....

http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:OrwGI2tPfM0C:www.hankooki.com/kt_op/200208/t2002081917065548110.htm+greenspan+%22appointed+by %22+congress&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Justin

During the panic of 1907 Wilson declared, "All this trouble could be averted if we appointed a committee of six or seven public-spirited men like J.P.Morgan to handle the affairs of our country."

Since robber barons were still running loose back then, it makes one wonder if the "panics" were in any way orchestrated to achieve the desired effect which was ultimately the Central Bank.

When Congress argued about the the Aldrich plan which was the predecessor to the Federal Reserve Act, Congressman Charles Lindbergh stated, "Our financial system is a false one and a huge burden on the people...I have alleged that there is a Money Trust. Why does the Money Trust press so hard for the Aldrich Plan now, before the poeple know what the money trust is doing...The Aldrich Plans is the Wall Street plan. It is a broad challenge to the Government by the champion of the money trust...It was a very clever move that the National Monetary Commission was created. In 1907 nature responded most beautifully and gave this country the most boutiful crop it ever had. Other industries were busy too, and from a national standpoint all the conditions were right for a most prosporous year. Instead, a panic entailed enormous losses upon us. Wall Street knew the American people were demanding a remedy against the recurrance of such a ridiculous unnatural condition. Most Senators and Representatives fell into the Wall Street trap and pass the Aldrich Emergency Currency Bill. But the real purpose was to get a monetary commission which would fram a propostion for amendments to our currency adn banking laws which would suit the money trust...Wall Street speculation brought the panic of 1907. The depositors' funds were loaned to gamblers and anybody the money trust wanted to favor. Then when the depositors wanted their money, the banks did not have it. That made the panic."

In 1911 Lindberg said, "The government prosecutes other trusts, but supports the money trust. I have been waiting patiently for several years for an opportunity to expose the false money standard, and to show that the greatest of all favoritism is that extended by the government to the money trust."

The international bankers used the fake panic of 1907 as a basis for the need of a central bank. Isn't it strange that the central bank (The Fed) didn't prevent the Great Depression?

Originally posted by Stage Monster
It's not an elected position because if it was, then the politics would enter into the mix, and instead of a person doing what they think is best for the economy (independent of party politics), we'd wind up with a person in office who would make economic choices that affect our national economy immediately and directly based solely off of what the party in power would like to see done.

This way, we get a non-political economist in charge of the economy.

And Justin, you're right, it is stability over equality.

At least if we had elected officials running the show we could call them up and gripe. Politics is supposed to be in the mix. Not so with Greenscum is untouchable. The vaunted federal reserve has never even been audited. No unelected man should hold such power in a democratic society.

Originally posted by 86Dude


I would rather have elected officials running the economy as put forth in the constitution than some untouchable, self serving banker. I will hate his replacement equally.

wow bro,.. :eek:

very awesomely put :D

i can smell witty all over it ;)

Originally posted by Snouter


But having a Supreme Court is what the US Constitution demands. What does Article I, Section 8 in the US Constitution say about coining and regulating the value of money? It says Congress is supposed to have that power, not an unaccountable international banker.

Greenspan has the power to coin money? What are you talking about? The US Mints are not run by the Federal Reserve Board.

Sheez...

Originally posted by Stage Monster
Greenspan has the power to coin money?

LOL Do you mean does he stand there and help the scuptors carve out the images used on the quarters? This is probably not true. At least, my brother did not see him when his olympic coin design was introduced at the Treasury building in Washington.

http://deecken.com/studios/portfolio/allCoins.gif

Does he have power of money pushed through the banks and control the money supply? Yes, of course he does. Manipulating interest rates is his job.

What are you talking about?

The Federal Reserve System.

The US Mints are not run by the Federal Reserve Board.
Sheez...

The coin and paper currency of the United States is issued by the Federal Reserve. The currency is actually produced by the U.S. Treasury, through its Bureau of the Mint and Bureau of Engraving and Printing. The currency is then distributed by the Federal Reserve Regional Banks to financial institutions.

The basic plan for the Federal Reserve System was drafted at a secret meeting held in November 1910 at the private resort of J. P. Morgan on Jekyll Island off the coast of Georgia. Those who attended represented the great finacnial institutions of Wall Street and, indirectly, Europe as well. The reason for secrecy was simple. Had it been known that rival factions of the banking community had joined together, the public would have been alerted to the possibility that the bankers were plotting an agreement in restraint of trade which, of course, is exactly what they were doing. What emerged was a cartel agreement with five objectives:
1) Stop the growing competition from the nation's newer banks, 2) Obtain a franchise to create money out of nothing for the purpose of lending,
3) Get control of the reserves of all banks so that the more reckless ones would not be exposed to currency drains and bank runs,
4) Get the taxpayer to pick up the cartel's inevidable losses,
5) Convince Congress that the purpose was to protect the public.

It was realized that the bankers would have to become partners with the politicians and that the structure of the cartel would have to be a Marxist, central bank. The record shows that the Fed failed to achieve it stated objectives as being a benign aid to the American economy. That is because that was never the true goal. As a banking cartel, and in terms of the 5 objectives states above, it has been an unqualified success.

The Federal Reserve should be abolished because:

1) It is a cartel operating against the public interest
2) It is the supreme instrument of usury
3) It generates an unfair tax in the form of inflation
4) It encourages war
5) It destabilizes the economy
6) It is an instrument of totalitarianism and a plank of the Communist Manifesto

Tell ya what, you go grab your guns and ammo and try taking that cause on yourself. I'm staying home and watching football.

Originally posted by Stage Monster
Tell ya what, you go grab your guns and ammo and try taking that cause on yourself. I'm staying home and watching football.

Stage Monster says after Snouter slays him.

If you can't keep a sense of humor when engaged in these debates, I've often found that you wind up taking things waaay too seriously.

Originally posted by Stage Monster
If you can't keep a sense of humor when engaged in these debates, I've often found that you wind up taking things waaay too seriously.

true that brother,.. :D

-robb sneak