Saturday, March 6, 2010

More News;wap2;wap2


the Federal Reserve is a Private Bank owned by a group of Wealthy Bankers actually......

The Government has absolutely no power over it and it can do whatever it wants, such as loaning 2 trillion dollars in "Secret" loans as it did under the Bush Administration and continues to do today.

You see, Barack Obama has absolutely no power over the FED because it is a private bank - they are not keeping anything safe

Perhaps you should reseach what Lincoln did, there was no Federal Reserve bank when Lincoln was president, actually - Lincoln revived a Currency printed by the Government and used it for Infrastructure such as the Inter Contintental Railway and Agriculture Technology.

So, if Obama is such a supporter of Lincoln i would demand he follow Lincolns policies!

It really looks to me, (and i never really knew this) that the entire Von Mises website is a front for the Rocekfeller family. Thanks for the posts..... i really never knew how far this reached.

I knew that the origins of the school were outright fascist but i never knew they had articles up there defending the people who attempting to kill us right now.

-Revolt 426


Thursday, March 4, 2010

Economic Tidbits

in addition the austrian school neglects to acknowledge all modern private sector technology is DERIVED From non other then federal infrastructure investments. For example all modern computer chips... Where did they come lfrom ?. The kennedy space program. The internet ? Darpa. modern trade routes ?. The intercontinental railway.... So you want the free markets? the free markets DONT EXIST. It is a utopian ideal. An acronym for goldman sachs and jp morgan

-Revolt 246


#1 the proposal is not to build infrastructure via NO BID contracts, but infact to build via contracts that are BIDDED on. IN addition to that, illuminists would be put in front of a Pecora Commision like entity and put in jail under Tarpley's solution.

#2 "Once the public sector has grown back again..."
And you fail to realize nothing will EVER grow back again without basic infrastructure in place, considering the railways in the US are literally FALLING APART, along with the Bridges, Roads and every other bit of infrastructure that has not been updated in 4 decades. Labour is prior to capital - you wanna print money and give it to the private sector and pray they do the right thing? it doesn't work - history is certainly not on your side here. Infact, everytime a private robber baron has patented technology it has been locked away in a vault and never resurfaced.

#3 "With economic freedom, it would be shocking how fast the economy would grow" - How do you define economic freedom? with the definition you offer Goldman Sachs and it's financial masters in London would grow and 4/5ths of the worlds population DIES.

-Revolt 426



Quote from: aerborne on July 01, 2009, 04:35:27 PM
Except that the article didn't say that did it? It said california should print and loan the money at interest didn't it?

Oh it is so typical of you to take an example (As you've done so many times) from history and then say "The article said to print and loan money at interest".... no it DID not, the article is providing a possible solution FOR California by monetizing infrastructure as you can clearly see :"The committee realized that if the Guernsey States issued their own notes to fund the project, rather than borrowing from an English bank, there would be no interest to pay. This would lead to substantial savings. Because as anyone with a mortgage should understand, the debtor ends up paying at least double the amount borrowed over the long-term.” The article was giving an example of a situation that occured in 1815, and you of course have to bring in a load of irrelivant crap that has nothing to do with the article...., just like the historic example of the Bank of North DakotaWhat is the point anymore? What is your goal here? ......... why are you bringing up things that haven't anything to do with what i just posted?

-Revolt 426


Oh by the way, i love the NeoCon tactics that you use, pointing to Webster Tarpley as if he thought up the idea of the Greenback System and was responsible for Benjamin Franklin, Washington, Hamilton and many other of our leaders in the 18th and 19th Century.

Get with the program, this has nothing to do with Tarpley - It has to do with Monetary Reform and U.S. History.

Tarpley just has enough brains to point that out, you on the other hand - just kick and scream and throw temper tantrums whenever someone posts anything that disproves your Austrian "THEORY" , because that is all the Austrian School is. A tremendous hoax of a theory, that has never succeeded economically and has no historic base.

You also fell right into the "WAHH WAHH that's Socialism" Trap, so i suppose Benjamin Franklin and George Washington were Socialists! That is a new one to me. Is the Post Office Socialism? How about the Fire Department? Developing Canals for River Traportation that never would have been developed by the "Free Markets". ?

You going to provide an argument or just stamp your feet and post Patriotic Austrian threads that have been debunked?.


-Revolt 426


Yes, i ALREADY DID so by writing an ESSAY on it here :

If you read this, you will see that you are calling BENJAMIN FRANKLIN and GEORGE WASHINGTON "Socialists"

And i agree with virtually everything GeoLibertarian says in this THREAD as well.............


NEWSFLASH! when you CALL OBAMA a Socialist, you give him LEFT COVER and people LIKE HIM MORE

hello! is anyone there Lord Edward? ANYONE?

You are interpreting the "General Welfare" Clause , as if you were a lawmaker? who do you think you are, GOD?

The whole point is, when you call CORPORATISM, SOCIALISM - you are providing OBAMA with COVER and you do it virtually EVERY DAY. This means all the liberals who are brainwashed by Obama see you as another right wing Rush Limbaugh CLOWN because they think Obama is actually re-distributing wealth, and providing everyone with Government assistance, when he is doing the OPPOSITE

But i am a "Socialist" because i advocate a monetary reform where the Government merely issues currency into productive infraststructure...... perhaps you should read the communist manifesto and educate yourself as to what "Socialism" is rather then calling every thing the Government does "Socialism" when we currently have FASCISM - and perhaps you should stop posting 5-10 page long American Liberty League (Rockefeller/Morgan/DuPont) and American Enterprise Institute (Rupert Murdoch) documents that have re-written history? I've caught you doing so numerous times but you of course, go ahead and do it again - then attack people from the 9-11 Truth movement as "Socialists".... It's just the epidamy of STUPIDITY to do these things and intentionally MISLEAD people.

Again, this essay has nothing to do with Tarpley other then using his quotes to point the obvious situation and history of the United States out, or highlight it.When people revert to attacking the "messenger" instead of the "message" it means they have no logical argument - sort of like Ron Paul says he is just the messenger. This essay does not ecompass half of the ideals Tarpley would like to see instituted as he is a progressive democrat and i am not.No one advocated "Enlarging" Government, this essay is on monetary reform and the Constitution grants specifically grants the Government the duty to issue currency.What it is issued INTO, is the primary focus - productive activity (In this case, meaning infrastructure) , -or- loaning to banks so they can do whatever they want with it.Attacking Tarpley, as shown - is just more pointless , substanceless blathering.

-Revolt 426


Hey Clearmyst, FDR was surely not perfect however, the New Deal was an expermental process. Things were done right, things were done incorrectly.

There are MASSES of Dis-Information on the net about FDR, it would require going to an actual bookstore or amazon and ordering a detailed book on him , and reading his quotes to actually understand his intentions. A fellow by the name of Shayler has written a complete book of BS about FDR and it is circulating around the world/net. I would suggest reading about his history has a Naval officer, there are some interesting things to be read.

It is absurd to call FDR a fascist ( i am not saying you did this, nor is this directed at you, however it is a common theme to associate FDR with Keynes, which is nonsense, infact they argued throughout the entire Bretton Woods Conference about a 1 world currency) considering a group of fascist bankers header by JP Morgan tried to assassinate and overthrow him.

The key thing to understand about Roosevelt's Infrastructure policy is, it was not Spending money - it was Federal Credit, or simply an investment for the Nation based on Lincolns economic policy.

Aspects of the New Deal / FDR that were correct things to do considering the crisis:
1) Put the insolvent FED into Bankruptcy for the issuence of 100 billion dollars in Gold Convertable Currency in the prior 2 administrations with only 4 Billion in Gold Reserves (This leads to the de-coupling of gold from the dollar , quite obviously)

2) Using the FED during bankruptcy as a Federal Credit Window to the ECONOMY, not the Commercial Banking system for the sole purpose of investing in high tech infrastructure

3) Enacting some Social programs to stop elderly people from starving to death

4) The Bretton Woods System, an International Fixed Rate system anchored by gold, which in reality prevented speculators from creating bubbles from 1944 to 1971 when Kissinger and Nixon collapsed it.

Things FDR Did that were wrong:

1) Price Fixing in the Agriculture markets to fight Deflation
2) Allowing Congress to stomp on his Infrastructure policies in 1936 and caving into them, hence allowing the economy to re-collapse to some extent in 1937
3) (I cannot accuse him of caving into the FED because he died in 1944 before the war ended, his intentions were to take the machine tool capabilities of the War and convert them into Physical goods and infrastructure. However, if you must go there - He did not get rid of the FED.

As i said, the new deal was an experiment, based on Lincolns "Science Driver" economic policies of investing federal funds directly into infrastructure - there were some programs that ended up being detrimental to the country however as a whole, the New Deal actually in REALITY did save the country from complete economic melt down, contrary to the idiotic assumption that WW2 saved the US economy *LAUGH* we are in 2 wars right now, is it saving the economy? I Wish!.

-Revolt 426

Tuesday, March 2, 2010

More Economic Information

letting the system collapse will destroy everything

Including millions and millions of lives. But then cults are known for their eery fondness of human sacrifice, so perhaps that's to be expected.

a gold standard would cause the worse deflation in the history of humanity

And would thus force countless millions of Americans out of job and home, and would make millions more virtual slaves to their creditors, since it would likely take the average wage-earner several decades just to pay off a $5,000 credit card debt, and several lifetimes to pay off a mortgage. (This, of course, is what William Jennings Bryan was referring to when he talked about mankind being crucified upon a "cross of gold.")

To call that "freedom" is no less Orwellian and no less ridiculous than saying that "war is peace" or that "ignorance is knowledge."

To any relative newcomers who may be reading this: to have a better understanding of why the "gold standard" is not the panacea that Austrian Schoolers blindly insist it is, see the following: (part 1 of 3) (part 2 of 3) (part 3 of 3)



No, you should go do some research on the British Empire and the Rothschild gold reserves though. If you think Gold can facilitate an ever growing population of now 6.8 Billion , and if we actually had freedom, it would grow even further. Suppose the worlds Gold Supply runs out? Shall we all just stop developing the economy and die?.

Tell me, what happens when the population goes from 7 Billion to 10 Billion and there isn't enough Gold? what do we do?.....


The Gold standard contributed VERY much to bankrupting the Nation and PREVENTING it from rebuilding itself , It STRANGLED the nation for CURRENCY because the BRITISH CONTROLLED THE GOLD SUPPLIES.

If you cannot understand this, then you are doomed and i thank god that someone like you is not in power.

The Panic if 1837 was caused by the GOLD STANDARD resulting in massive DEFLATION and paving the way for the CIVIL WAR.

-Revolt 246



That, for the umpteenth time, is because it's not "our" government at the moment (due to institutionalized election-rigging), and why election reform must therefore be implemented simultaneously.

How many more times must I explain this to you? A dozen? Two dozen? Roll Eyes



As usual you've got it backwards.

Milton Friedman (for those who don't already know) was awarded the Nobel Prize in economics largely for his scholarly achievements in the field of monetary history and theory. And it was he -- after already having won said prize -- who wrote the following:

"Inflation occurs when the quantity of money rises appreciably more rapidly than [economic] output, and the more rapid the rise in the quantity of money per unit of output, the greater the rate of inflation. There is probably no other proposition in economics that is as well established as this one." (Free to Choose, p. 254)

It is therefore the Austrian School, not its critics, that is mindlessly denying "reality" when it blindly insists that printing new money is automatically inflationary even if the resultant increase in the money supply does not exceed the increase in economic output.

On issue after issue, Austrian Schoolers try desperately to mold reality so that it conforms to their half-baked theories instead of the other way around, and then, in their usual arrogant fashion, hypocritically project this irrational tendency onto any informed critic who dares to call them on it.

Another illustration of this is their dogmatic view of government "intervention" in the marketplace. If one is to avoid being charged with heresy by self-appointed Thought Police from the Austrian School, it is simply not enough to say that "most" government regulations are bad or unnecessary. No, no, one must openly believe with utter conviction that all government regulations are bad and evil by definition.

Nowhere is this blind devotion to ideological dogma more evident than in the case of derivatives. As most listeners of Alex's show have probably figured out by now, the financial meltdown of 2008/2009 had far more to do with the quadrillion-dollar derivatives bubble than it did with the comparatively miniscule subprime mortgage bubble. Yet, in the articles they write concerning the financial crisis, Austrian School commentators rarely (if ever) even mention the word derivatives, let alone acknowledge the primary causative role they played.


To me the answer is rather obvious: because doing so would draw unwanted attention to the fact that Wall Street casino gamblers could never have created the derivatives bubble in the first place had the Glass-Steagall Act -- a form of (gasp!) "government intervention" -- not been repealed in 1999. And since Austrian Schoolers have so much of their precious egos invested in the baseless presumption that all government regulations are bad (not just "most"), it's impossible for them to admit that the repeal of a particular regulation could possibly have caused far more harm than good, even when the facts overwhelmingly show that it did.

This, I'm now convinced, is why Austrian School reactionaries scoff even at the idea of election reform: because they've allowed themselves to be brainwashed (as cult members are prone to do) into believing that a total collapse of our entire economy -- and hence of society itself! -- is not only inevitable, but desirable; and that anything that gets in the way of this collapse is therefore a bad thing, not a good thing.


Simple. Because, just as socialists perceive "the State" as a mystical, God-like entity existing independently of the people who compose it, Austrian Schoolers have a similar conception of the "free market," as evidenced by this quasi-religious notion they incessantly promote that, following said collapse, a mystical, God-like entity euphemistically known as the "free market" will magically rise like a phoenix from the ashes of our destroyed nation, give birth to a gold-based money system, and all will be well with the world.

The NWO promotes "order" out of chaos; the Austrian School promotes economic revival and stability out of chaos. Either way you're dealing with a glorified cult that tries to sell people on the insane idea that "chaos" is a legitimate and effective means of achieving a desirable socioeconomic goal.

It is for this reason that I respectfully call once again on all thinking members of the anti-NWO/pro-America movement to stop allowing Austrian School cultists portray themselves as the divine gatekeepers of any and all things having to do with "liberty," "property" and "free enterprise."

Just as we must defend America from those who would destroy it in the name of the NWO, we must defend it against those who would -- by deliberate omission, and in the name of the "free market" -- knowingly allow America to be destroyed by an otherwise solvable economic and political crisis.


Yeah, it's just soooo absurd to value people more than a piece of metal, isn't it? Roll Eyes


"[Andrew] Jackson and Van Buren removed the monetary power from the private bankers but did not re-establish it in the hands of the nation. Instead, Van Buren organized the Independent Treasury System, establishing 15 sub branches of the Treasury to handle government moneys in 1840. From December 1836 the government moved toward making and receiving all payments in coinage, or truly convertible bank notes....Once the state bank notes were no longer accepted by the government, their circulation was cut back dramatically.

"This was the closest our nation has ever come to implementing a real gold/silver standard. Operating under the commodity theory of money, Van Buren, who truly cared for the Republic, helped bring on the worst depression the Nation had ever seen, starting in 1837. It was reportedly even worse than that caused by the 2nd Bank of the U.S. in 1819. Bad as the state bank notes were, they had still been functioning as money!

"Those who proclaim that no gold and silver money system has ever failed should consider that whether you are a laborer, farmer, or industrialist, the money system's success or failure is not measured by the value of a piece of metal. When your job, your farm, or factory has disappeared in a monetarily created depression, the system has failed!" [Emphasis mine]

-- Stephen Zarlenga, The Lost Science of Money, p. 426