Global Economy?

Yeah I know. I edited my post.

 

There's no need for all that. Alan Greenspan already made a great argument for returning to the gold standard. He's one of those "authority" figures so surely you'd take his word over mine on that subject.

Gold and Economic Freedom By Alan Greenspan. <-- Click On This!​

From the article. Now remember this is Alan Greenspan saying all this. Make sure to read the whole thing so you don't miss any of his excellent points.​

A fully free banking system and fully consistent gold standard have not as yet been achieved. But prior to World War I, the banking system in the United States (and in most of the world) was based on gold and even though governments intervened occasionally, banking was more free than controlled. Periodically, as a result of overly rapid credit expansion, banks became loaned up to the limit of their gold reserves, interest rates rose sharply, new credit was cut off, and the economy went into a sharp, but short-lived recession. (Compared with the depressions of 1920 and 1932, the pre-World War I business declines were mild indeed.) It was limited gold reserves that stopped the unbalanced expansions of business activity, before they could develop into the post-World War I type of disaster. The readjustment periods were short and the economies quickly reestablished a sound basis to resume expansion.

But the process of cure was misdiagnosed as the disease: if shortage of bank reserves was causing a business decline — argued economic interventionists — why not find a way of supplying increased reserves to the banks so they never need be short! If banks can continue to loan money indefinitely — it was claimed — there need never be any slumps in business. And so the Federal Reserve System was organized in 1913. It consisted of twelve regional Federal Reserve banks nominally owned by private bankers, but in fact government sponsored, controlled, and supported. Credit extended by these banks is in practice (though not legally) backed by the taxing power of the federal government. Technically, we remained on the gold standard; individuals were still free to own gold, and gold continued to be used as bank reserves. But now, in addition to gold, credit extended by the Federal Reserve banks ("paper reserves") could serve as legal tender to pay depositors.

< snip >

When business in the United States underwent a mild contraction in 1927, the Federal Reserve created more paper reserves in the hope of forestalling any possible bank reserve shortage. More disastrous, however, was the Federal Reserve's attempt to assist Great Britain who had been losing gold to us because the Bank of England refused to allow interest rates to rise when market forces dictated (it was politically unpalatable). The reasoning of the authorities involved was as follows: if the Federal Reserve pumped excessive paper reserves into American banks, interest rates in the United States would fall to a level comparable with those in Great Britain; this would act to stop Britain's gold loss and avoid the political embarrassment of having to raise interest rates. The "Fed" succeeded; it stopped the gold loss, but it nearly destroyed the economies of the world, in the process. The excess credit which the Fed pumped into the economy spilled over into the stock market, triggering a fantastic speculative boom. Belatedly, Federal Reserve officials attempted to sop up the excess reserves and finally succeeded in braking the boom. But it was too late: by 1929 the speculative imbalances had become so overwhelming that the attempt precipitated a sharp retrenching and a consequent demoralizing of business confidence. As a result, the American economy collapsed. Great Britain fared even worse, and rather than absorb the full consequences of her previous folly, she abandoned the gold standard completely in 1931, tearing asunder what remained of the fabric of confidence and inducing a world-wide series of bank failures. The world economies plunged into the Great Depression of the 1930's.

Now you go ahead and argue with the "chairman of the board" all night if you want I gotta take a break. But first. did ya notice the last paragraph Greenspan is saying the very same thing as Greg Canavan in one of my other links. Sounds like both of them are making the same claim that it was the Federal Reserve's intervention that caused the "Great Depression" doesn't it?

Made our lives easier? Yeah right you bettcha.

 

Yes I do agree. Of course it's government sponsored. The Fed gives congress easy access to debt. It's better politically to steal the wealth of citizens through inflation than increased taxes. Government supported? You betcha! When Ben says jump congress says "how high"?

The Fed has congress on a leash so to speak. I don't agree with the idea that government controls the Fed. It's more like the Fed is the government. How many former Fedsters are there in Obama's administration? How many Wallstreeters now hold power in his administration? Think about it.

How was Paulson able to terrorize congress into bailing out all his banker friends with our money so easily? Remember now 80 or 90 percent of the American people said no to those bailouts. And yet.

300 of the 800 billion dollars the banks stole from us (yes I said stole there is no euphemism on this planet that can make what they did sound any less sinister) went to foreign banks.

How is it our responsibility to bail out foreign banks? Hey, That's what happens in a global economy. Look what happened after the Fed's intervention into the Bank of England's folly.

The Great Depression.

Greenspan didn't call for a return to gold the standard? Then what is this?

"This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists' antagonism toward the gold standard."

Say that to yourself a few times and let it sink in.

Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights.

Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights.

Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights.

Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights.

Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights.


What this all boils down to my very good friend is this, you are defending an "insidious process". One that steals our wealth through stealth. Now I realize it's not all your fault. It's not your fault all those welfare statists lied to you and it's not all your fault you believed them because you probably never had access to opposing views thanks to the corporate controlled media that echoed all their lies for all those years. They kept you uninformed as to what an "insidious process" that is the fiat system of debt slavery.

But now you have access to the truth about the whole thing. So now what are you going to do? Continue to defend a pack of fraudsters that steal from you and your family or are you going to defend economic freedom?

This just in . . . Utah Considers Return to Gold, Silver Coins

 

Yes, I just read it. He's right. Things change. A hot item today may be forgotten tomorrow. All this is true.

But this is also true. The author said,

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"This is gold's great benefit: its continuity of value over time. People will still impute value to gold in a century. There are very few investment assets that will surely maintain a comparable value over the same time period.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Every line of mass production gets better over time except gold. Yet gold, by not changing at all, maintains value through time." [/FONT]

Gold holds it's value over time. The price of gold may rise and fall but it will always have value. The same cannot be said be said for fiat currency.

We've already gone over this. Repeat this a few more times.

Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights.

Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights.

Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights.

Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights.

Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights.

Maybe Greenspan's chioce of these words (insidious and confiscation) has caused some confusion. What do these words mean?

Insidious

1 a : awaiting a chance to entrap : b : harmful but enticing

2 a : having a gradual and cumulative effect b : developing so gradually as to be well established before becoming apparent

Confiscate

1: to seize as forfeited to the public treasury

2: to seize by or as if by authority

Why do you suppose Alan Greenspan used the above words to describe deficit spending?

 

Don’t Worry, Be Happy: Unemployment Is Down, The Stock Market Is Up And The Economy I

Well of course it is. You don't think all those high fallutin economists whose well paying jobs depend on putting out Wallstreet propaganda are going to tell you the truth do ya? (I'm giving some examples of their lies contrasted against the truth at the end of this post)

Greenspan never said gold would stop it. He said "it stands in the way". Evidently you feel nothing should stand in the way of the "insidious process". Sounds as if you are defending it (poorly) to me. :smilewinkgrin:

BTW, Greenspan got a special gift from the Queen of England for his role in the "insidious process". He was knighted. Now why do you suppose the Queen of England would give a guy like Alan Greenspan a knighthood? Couldn't be because of the age old ties between the private global bankers that rule over our economy and the City of London could it?

We waged a bloody and costly war against these very ties awhile back. It was called the American Revolution. <-- Click on this!

No the Fed just gives congress easy access to more debt. Politicians would rather steal our wealth on the sly (inflation) than smack us with higher taxes. No one wants to have higher taxes. Politicians know this. Think they don't? Where else can congress go when it needs more money (and it always needs more money) than those few private global bankers who congress gave a monopoly on the creation of money out of nothing? Not to long ago we gave those same private global bankers 800 billion dollars in "bailout money" at next to zero interest so they could turn around and "loan" our money back to us at 3 - 4% interest. Nice! Money for nothing? Only for the private global bankers.

Utah ain't the only state considering this move.

Don't worry, be happy . . .

Haven't you heard? The coming economic collapse has officially been canceled. The U.S. economy is in full recovery mode. It has just been announced that the U.S. unemployment rate fell to 8.9% in February. That was the third monthly decline in a row. 192,000 new jobs were created in the U.S. during February. That was the fifth month in a row in which the U.S. economy has gained jobs. Corporate profits are way up. For the most recent month that numbers are available, sales of GM vehicles were up 49%, sales of Chrysler vehicles were up 13%, and sales of Ford vehicles were up 10%. Can't you see? The great American economic machine has roared back to life. The stock market is way up this year. The recession is over. Our financial system is more stable than ever. Pretty soon all Americans that want jobs are going to be able to get jobs and all of our government debts are going to be paid off. The greatest days for the U.S. economy are just around the corner. So don't worry, be happy.

Don't worry, be happy - the U.S. unemployment rate is falling and it will continue to fall. Don't be concerned that according to Gallup, the U.S. unemployment rate actually rose to 10.3% at the end of February. Everyone knows that U.S. government numbers are far more accurate than the numbers that Gallup puts out. Just don't pay any attention to the "doom and gloomers" and just keep on watching American Idol. Very soon there will be plenty of jobs for everyone.

Don't worry, be happy - globalism is doing wonderful things for the U.S. economy. Just look at all the incredibly cheap products from foreign nations such as China that are available in our stores. Do you think that all of this stuff would be so cheap if we didn't have free trade? We may have a massive "trade imbalance" right now, but this is just temporary as we transition over to a one world economy. The job losses may look bad right now, but once our wage levels go down low enough we will be able to export more stuff to the rest of the world. So don't be alarmed when the "protectionists" tell you that between December 2000 and December 2010, 38 percent of the manufacturing jobs in Ohio were lost, 42 percent of the manufacturing jobs in North Carolina were lost and 48 percent of the manufacturing jobs in Michigan were lost. Those workers just need to get more "education" so that they can be competitive in today's global economy. And please don't listen to people like Alan Blinder, an economist at Princeton, who is projecting that offshoring will ulti&shy;mately affect up to 40 million American jobs. The truth is that there are many jobs that simply cannot be outsourced. For example, workers over in China and India will never be able to flip the burgers that need flipping here in the United States and they will never be able to welcome people to your local Wal-Marts.

Don't worry, be happy - the fact that the number of Americans on food stamps has set another new all-time high (44 million) is just an indication that more Americans are learning how to use government services. At some point this number will start to go down as the U.S. economy roars back to life.

Don't worry, be happy - the fact that new home sales in the United States have been setting record lows just means that the only direction they have to go is up. As the employment situation continues to brighten, it is inevitable that the housing industry in the U.S. will surge to greater heights than ever before.

Don't worry, be happy - the fact that so many Americans are going back to work means that lots of additional tax money will soon be pouring into the coffers of state and local governments. In Idaho, Boise County has just declared bankruptcy, but that is just an isolated incident. We shouldn't be seeing too many more local governments default on their debts.

Don't worry, be happy - the economic improvement that we are seeing right now will soon mean that the austerity measures being implemented across the United States will soon come to an end. Yes, times have been tough in many communities lately. The following is an excerpt from a recent New York Times article that describes the brutal austerity that has been implemented in Vallejo, California....

For more of these shining examples of economic recovery brought to us by the same majority of well paid economists that our good friend InTheLight evidently holds in such high esteem . . .CLICK HERE

That's all I got time for today folks. This global economy keeps me very busy installing Chinese made parts on my old American vehicles. I'd sure like to have a new one but alas the almost total debasement of our dollar has driven the cost of them upwards and above of 20,000 devalued dollars. Back in 1973 a man could be the proud owner of a spanking new Chevy Nova for around 2,500 dollars. And don't tell me the unions are at fault. Imports cost just as much. What about cars made here you ask? One car manufacturer here in Middle Tennessee pays it's temp force 8 - 10 dollars an hour w/ no benefits and still charges upward and over 20,000 bucks for their cars.

Yes, globalism and the private banking cartel known as "The Fed" with it's insidious process of covert thievery has done us all wonders.

 

A note issued by a central bank, such as the Federal Reserve Note, is bank currency. These notes are given to the government in exchange for an interest-bearing government bond. The primary means to pay for the interest on these bonds is to borrow more bank notes, thus beginning a vicious cycle that ultimately ends with the complete destruction of the currency and bankruptcy of the nation. History is replete with such occurrences. (For a list of countries that have experienced hyperinflation click here ).

This begs the question as to why such a doomed system would exist? The reason is that during the course of the arrangement, which can last for centuries, the central bankers who issue the money amass great fortunes from the large sums of interest collected. In essence it is a transfer of wealth from the many to the elite few. Government leaders prefer such a system because it does not require budgets to be balanced. It is far more politically expedient to borrow, then to directly tax the citizens.

(this is why congress is under the control of "The Fed" and not the other way around as you tried to claim earlier on InTheLight)

The effects of currency debasement and debt accumulation are not obvious and in the words attributed to Vladimir Lenin by John Maynard Keynes,

"By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens...There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose." (John Maynard Keynes)

Throughout the history of the United States there has been a struggle between central bankers and their interest-bearing money and those who oppose them. In fact, the United States was created as a direct result of that struggle. SOURCE

 

Ah yes, the one the only Edward Flaherty. Full time liberal welfare statist and part time "conspiracy theory debunker". You picked a real winner with this one InTheLight. :smilewinkgrin:

My reply: Here is another half-truth that is a whopper deception. It is true that most of the money paid by the government for interest on the national debt is returned to the government. That is because the Fed’s charter requires any interest payments in excess of the Fed’s actual operating expenses to be refunded. However, before we jump to the conclusion that this is a wonderful benefit, we must remember that the banking cartel is able to use tax dollars to pay 100% of its operating expenses with few questions asked about the nature of those expenses. After all of those expenses are paid, what is left over is rebated to the Treasury, as Flaherty says. There is no secret about this, and you will find an explanation of it in my book. Technically, there is no “profit” on this money. However, remember that creating money for the government is only one of the functions of the Fed. The real bonanza comes, not from money created out of nothing for the government, but from money created out of nothing by the commercial banks for loans to the private sector. That’s where the real action is. This is the famous slight-of-hand trick. Distract attention with one hand while the coin is retrieved by the other. By focusing on the supposed generosity of the Fed by returning unused interest to the Treasury, we are supposed to overlook the much larger river of gold flowing into the member banks in the form of interest on nothing as a result of consumer and commercial loans. G. Edward Griifin

My reply: Basically, Flaherty is correct as far as he goes. But, as we shall see in so many of his statements, he stops short of the entire truth. A half-truth is just as much of a deception as an outright lie. Flaherty says that the Board of Governors is politically appointed. This is true and it is supposed to make us feel safe in the thought that the President responds to the will of the people and that he selects only those who have the public interest at heart. The part of the story omitted by Flaherty is that the President does not select these people from his own personal address book, nor does he ask the public to submit nominations. With few exceptions, he makes appointments from lists given to him by the staffs of banking committees of Congress and from private sources that have been influential in his election campaign. The most powerful of all these groups are the financial institutions (including prominent members of the Fed itself) and the media corporations over which they have effective control. One does not have to be a so-called conspiracy theorist to recognize the tremendous influence that these institutions have over the outcome of presidential campaigns, and anyone with knowledge of how our current political system works will understand why the President makes exactly the appointments that the banks want him to make. All one has to do to see the accuracy of this appraisal is to examine the backgrounds and attitudes of the men who receive the appointments. While there is an occasional token individual who appears to come from the consumer sector of society, the majority are bankers deeply committed to the perpetuation of the system that sustains them. Anyone who would seriously challenge the power of the banking cartel would never be appointed. So, while Flaherty is correct in what he says, the implication of what he says (that the Fed is subject to control of the people through the political process) is entirely false. G. Edward Griifin

The real FACT: Is the Federal Reserve controls who the president "picks" and practically "owns" congress.

Nice try though partner. :smilewinkgrin:

Bout this time I imagine you're wondering whether to "tap out" or cry uncle huh? :laugh: