16 votes

Ayn Rand Inst: Could the Federal Reserve really collapse? Ron Paul is Fed up.

Could the Federal Reserve Really Collapse?

March 7, 2012 with Yaron Brook

Yaron Brook discusses Ron Paul’s prediction that the Federal Reserve might collapse. This PJTV interview was recorded on March 2, 2012.

http://arc-tv.com/could-t...


http://youtu.be/_SIZ7AXmlys



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
SteveMT's picture

It could collapse, but only after they're in the Caymans.

Good discussion. Thanks.

bumping as I . . .

bookmark.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

no, not through the financial market

people will have to change it through force somehow, politically or otherwise. that means waiting for gen Y to grow up. there has to be more people not willing to go along because, if you watch the recent lecture on the fed by jim grant, he talks about how many banking institutions basically buy up government bonds on fed's order, in exchange of course the fed will feed them through the back window whenever they need cheap loans and a rescue. the banking sector is run by the government. it's like playing with a shady house.. heads they win, tails you lose. those buyers at the bank won't let the bonds collapse, for as long as people are willing to participate in this monetary system. but of course you're not gonna burn your cash and just go live in the mountains--not practical, so it will have to take a collective effort to make it a more seamless transition requiring no exceptional hurdle for any particular individual who will participate, because otherwise it would be too much of a disincentive.

FEDERAL RESERVE COLLAPSE

Interesting. I did a dogpile on this and found a couple of very interesting websites. They claim the FED Charter will not be renewed by the FED. Their plan is for a USA currency collapse, where they can pick up the pieces with a new global currency. This means all FRN's will go to there true value, that is toilet paper. This is why Obama has been on a spending spree.

I think every senior in the country will be begging the elite bunch to save them from starvation. The population will most likely be willing to sell their souls to continue their way of life.

IF FRN's go to zero then gold and silver will be worth 300% to 500% of what it is now.

OH one of the websites stated if America wants a new deal with the banksters, the population will have to turn in all precious metals.

Here are what I found below:

http://truth-media.info/big-brother-america-government-prepa...

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread599998/pg1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryimFiJsE4E

Surviving the killing fields of Minnesota

Todays brainwashing: GMO's are safe

Anonymous vid on MSNBC calls the fed con men

on you tube. I found this very interesting. They are threatening to expose all bankers in USA and around the world of fraud and corruption. They claim there will be many arrests in the future.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQNXtFzzsbU

Surviving the killing fields of Minnesota

Todays brainwashing: GMO's are safe

Cyril's picture

CON MEN ?

Well, OF COURSE, technically, they ARE con men.

The larger picture scheme, though, where the Fed. managed to CONVINCE the others that the SCAM can work (by putting the people to sleep or keeping them so busy that they lose sight of the priceless value of Liberty and Freedoms, which are always more DENIED or debased, diluted in groups' entitlements instead) is ...

The FRACTIONAL reserve banking scheme, which is now GLOBAL for more than a hundred years and allows banks to MANIPULATE the degrees of Liberty of entire nations' markets and resources.

WHO seriously thinks one can get rid of usury and greed as long as banks are around ?

NOT I. I am not a fool. It is NATURAL for bankers to lend money with interests rates and keep their debtors captive as long as possible. But this is NOT the issue:

what cannot be ACCEPTABLE any longer is a global scheme of banks faking their assets and deposits usage for the sole purpose of enriching themselves and manipulating, with the help of GOVERNMENT buddy thieves, the very dynamics of markets themselves.

I have NO problem whatsoever with a single bank which would be holding on its own a trillion dollars in ACTUAL assets of gold, real estate, oil, or whatever.

I DO have a tremendous problem with those banksters who use this current SCAM to not only enrich each other but also use it as a formidable COVER UP tool to erase their OWN FAILURES in manipulating the same markets THAT THEY MILK with the help of CORRUPT governments, or rather, more appropriately named :

The servile MINIONS of Globalists CLUBS.

The E.U., the USA let their OWN people to be enslaved in a scheme they pretend to ignore or deny the existence thereof, and to make the pill easier to swallow:

Always more control over the people lives, thoughts (welfare daydreams justified by HEAVY propaganda) and creating fake divisions between "groups".

This is the PERFECT SCAM.

DIVIDE AND CONQUER ... Keep them slaves busy and fighting each other for entitlements and special protections, deny their individual liberties and freedom, create wars and hatred.

They think they can continue with this horror.

They are wrong:

Rise, People :

YE are many, THEY are few.

Let us fight :

Let us take our Liberty and Justice back.

Let us reinstate a wise Constitution.

Let us Restore The Land of Liberty our ancestors fought for.

Let us Restore America.

Let us be the Light To Freedom and Peace on this planet again.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Thanks for sharing!

This needs to be on the front page.

Their bond / debt portfolio is highly leveraged;

When interest rates move up, and they will, bond values will be destroyed arithmetically, as bonds have an inverse relationship in value to interest rates. They will be crushed. You are right the Fed's (unconstitutional) charter ends August 2013. I doubt congress will renew the charter as the American people are waking up and President Paul would veto it in any case :^)

Cyril's picture

There is something MUCH WORSE than economic collapse,

...

Which is LOOMING and which could make such economic collapse look like a PLEASANT ANECDOTE :

that'd be "a government" (read: A CLIQUE OF THIEVES) forcing martial laws on the People on the FALSE PRETENSE to save us all from the economic collapse instead of leaving THE PEOPLE to work things out for themselves (including, but not limited to : alternate currencies like silver, or gold, or variants of barter, etc).

Why would that be a FALSE PRETENSE ?

Reopen history books on the COLLECTIVISM chapters.

Then, see how much "good" and "justice" it can bring us.

NONE

AT ALL.

Instead :

THE VERY EXACT OPPOSITE.

LET US BE WARNED.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Follow the money

Cyril's picture

Interesting materials

Confirming one of my points :

when big corporate and government go sleep in the same bed, they keep needing EACH OTHER.

DEFINITELY.

Let the businesses compete on the markets, with ZERO PREROGATIVES WHATSOEVER granted (*) by the governments, then you won't kill bankers' usury or greed, sure, but at least you won't ENCOURAGE NOR JUSTIFY the enslavement of the people.

WHICHEVER form of enslavement it can be.

Either:

A. CRONY CAPITALISTIC

Or

B. COLLECTIVIST

I don't need the government.

But I DO need the market AND the market DOES need me.

Kill the market and replace it with CLIQUES OF BUREAUCRATS AND/OR OF CORPORATE HOARDERS, and claim everybody should be fine with it :

then, yes, I'll FOR SURE be gone.

(*) this, by the way, NOT EVEN being a new idea

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

100 Year Charter

Remember, the charter for the Fed is 100 years, which expires next year. As much as the institution may rankle, it is perfectly legal, due to the little known fact that the Constitution was never adopted. As such, the limits imposed by the orphan document do not hold sway, they are merely suggestions for running the very small territory owned by the United States.

If you want to see it go away, simply ask (demand) whomever is elected POTUS and POTUSA to take the proper article IV oath to support "this" (the written) Constitution. Back to lawful money, gold and silver.

But look for shenanigans regarding the fact that the charter is up. We are well past the bankruptcy reorganization that the US Corp has to undergo every 70 years (1790>1861>1931>2001). Boy, those dates sure look interesting....

Can you also cite specific

Can you also cite specific legislation showing the 100 year expiration of the Fed's charter?

I think it would be great if true but I haven't been able to substantiate it.

Here's the text of the original federal reserve act: http://www.llsdc.org/attachments/files/105/FRA-LH-PL63-43.pdf

I did not read it word for word but searched the document for the following terms: 100, 99, years, expire, charter. Nothing related to an expiration of the Fed comes up.

Also keep in mind that the federal reserve act of 1913 has been amended 200 times or so through other legislation. So even if it did have an expiration date in the original we would need to make sure that the amendments did not remove or extend the charter expiration.

Anyhow, so far from what I have read I do not see an expiration specified anywhere other than simply repealing the law.

...

You state that the

You state that the Constitution was never adopted. Is it your claim that we are still operating under the Articles of Confederation rather than the Constitution which was to replace it?

...

Show me the charter that says

Show me the charter that says 100 years. I had heard this a couple of years ago and asked the community here if anyone had a link to such. No one did.

Show me the charter that says 100 years.

I used to follow/believe the Corp US business. I wish I hadn't as it appears to be total BS which was, in all likelihood, coined by Eric Madsen of Team Law and then, subsequently, picked up by others.

http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/freedomcontent.cfm?...

Will do. The US *IS* A

Will do.

The US *IS* A Corp. Not sure who the guy you mentioned is, but you can look up THE UNITED STATES CORPORATION on Dunn and Bradstreet, along with all the Departments. No tinfoil hattery, it is simply fact:

http://www.manta.com/mb?search=Government+of+the+United+States

Barack Obama is a corporation, apparently based in London, incorporated on the day after he was "sworn in" as head of the US Corporation:

http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/9c336d785e3026458a20cc8660...

If this is all just tin, created by some charismatic Guru selling stuff, why is D&B and Companies House, two HIGHLY respected companies, putting this stuff on their database? Either they are doing this as a huge hoax (to what end), or things are not what you thought.

Again, only question that you need to answer is- if the Constitution was adopted, why are the Articles of Confederation still encoded as Law to the present day?

ETA: The link you posted is way out of date, and G.E. Griffin is as much of a disinformation agent as Larry Beecraft, Attourney in Douche. The capitalization DOES matter. So everything.

Jon, not sure what to make of

Jon, not sure what to make of the link. I am not espousing any of the Tin listed in that link. I sent you links from Dunn and Bradstreet, listing the US as a Corporation. Respond to that, or please refrain from posting until you get a grasp on what is being discussed. It is a Red Herring methinks anyway, as the core question, that you have yet to respond to is this:

How come the Articles of Confederation are still LAW?

All of the loony arguments about the 13th amendment regarding citizenship and the 16th amendment regarding taxation, indeed all of the ludicrous crap listed there starts from the same flawed premise: that the Constitution somehow held sway. It was never adopted. Please re-read that again if it is hard for you to follow.

This is not some Patriot/Freeman/Tax Protester drivel. This is simply reading and understanding information that is readily available. Did you download a copy of the US Code? Did you read the first two pages?

People are "hypnotized" by all of the things mentioned in your link because they still believe that if we could just "get back to" the Constitution, all will be well. It is the same feeling we have in supporting Ron Paul. The unfortunate thing is, you cannot restore that which never existed. You cannot win the game if you don't know what set of rules are being used.

If you truly don't believe what I am saying, bully for you. People are 100% free to believe whatever they want, even if it is wrong. They are also 100% free to experience the consequences of their beliefs, and deserve every ounce of it. The consequences of me being wrong are MUCH less than the consequences of you being wrong. But again, this is not directed at you. This is directed at people who are able to be flexible in their thoughts, and realize that it may be worthwhile to look into this, for their own sake and the sake of their children.

Again, let's set the configuration space for this argument. Please explain to me in a paragraph or less how the Adopted, Written Constitution can coexist in equal standing, at the same point in time, with the Articles Of Confederation.

I am retracting my statement

I am retracting my statement about the FedRes charter. It appears to be an "in perpetuity" kind of deal after 1927.

My question about the Articles of Confederation still stands, however.

And the negative votes- are the sound of a paradigm shifting without a clutch. I thank you.

No negative vote here

Was there a Topic Started on this subject of The Constitution not passing into law? I ask because I saw a Topic and sent a response, but the page loaded as 403 Access Denied.

Here is my response to that topic:

No thing can respond to a threat. No Articles of Confederation, no Constitution.

People can.

If the threat to people is from people committing crimes while those same criminals say, to their targeted victims, that these crimes are not crimes because we made these crimes legal, right here on this piece of paper, then it may be a good idea to get a second opinion, a competitive opinion.

Please help me out with something along these lines, if you can.

It has been recorded that people were in very bad shape in England under the criminal government of King John, which led to Magna Carta, with Trial by Jury.

So there was a time of prosperity in England, relatively speaking, with Trial by Jury, and Magna Carta used by people to arrest the steady flow of power from the many producers to the few legal criminals.

Moving ahead in time there was then a regime change back into despotic government in England leading to a whole lot of subjects, slaves, or victims, those people who were targeted for exploitation, no matter what name is place on them, they ran from England, running, shipping their behinds, to America.

People were running away from criminal governments in England, and elsewhere, and settling in America.

Runaway Slaves.

Here is my question, concerning this time period whereby American people prospered between the times when these prosperous people fled England and that moment in time when The Constitution war Ratified, or sort of, kind of, ratified.

My question concerns that specific time period between enslavement by criminals running a criminal government in England, arriving in America, and then prospering in America, and then The Constitution, and even more specifically the Whiskey Rebellion being crushed by a National Army after The Constitution was more or less ratified.

My question concerns an event in between leaving England to be prosperous in America and that Whiskey Rebellion, that time frame between English Enslavement and U.S.A. National Government enslavement, and I can call upon a specific event in that time period called Shays's Rebellion to focus attention on that specific time in history.

My question concerns who had the power to enforce which interpretation of which law for each of three events happening in this order:

A.
Defeat of the British Military by Rebels fighting as insurgents, rebels, rebelling against a criminal government.

B.
Shays's Rebellion, defeat of the rebels within a working Democratic Federated Republic, as the rebels fought as insurgents, rebels, rebelling against a criminal government (Massachusetts), the rebels then ran away from Massachusetts, escaped into Vermont, and were not legally ordered to be returned to Massachusetts.

C.
The Whiskey Rebellion, defeat of the rebels fighting as insurgents, rebels, rebelling against a criminal government within a Consolidated Monopoly Nation State or Union.

In context of a discovery involving which law is now in force, now, has to do with someone's interpretation of specific laws now, on specific documents now, so can you offer your viewpoint on those events listed above, as to who interpreted what laws then, and I have my own understanding of them, and my understanding is such that the real power isn't on those papers, the real power is commanded by individual people in competition, many competitive producers of things, all forcing the quality of the products up, and the costs of the products down, with that power on one side, all those Liberated producers are on one side, and they constitute one power, and on the other side, is the power of Legal Crime, with a tool called Legal Monopoly Money, which is enforced by combining the Legal Monopoly Money Power with the Law Enforcement Power into one Monopoly Power that has one main purpose, and that one main purpose is to destroy all competition everywhere within its power to destroy all competition.

People such as Alexander Hamilton, and Robert Morris, exemplify the people who use deceit, threats of violence, and acts of violence to empower the Legal Money Monopoly, combined with the Law Power, to create that Union or Monopoly of Legal Crime - organized crime with a badge - so they can say anything means anything no matter what anyone else may claim.

Such as:

"It depends upon what is is."

Joe

Trying to respond...

Have responded several times, to no avail. Post never shows up. Funny....:)

Try here:

Power Independence

I have my own forum that I use to backup my work.

You are welcome to try it, to see if I get any odd code from your end.

I had trouble here in this Forum initially, having to do with spam filters or whatever, I can't know.

I have no trouble posting here now.

Joe

And again...

Josf,

There was such a post, but I realized that I was being too stringent, and telling people that the things we have all believed to be true all our lives were lies is not a way to convince anyone.

I will try to explain a few things:

First off, go to edrivera.com Dr. Rivera has a handle on this matter. This is not my personal opinion, but his after extensive research.

Secondly, the Constitution *WAS* ratified, fully and properly. But it just never got around to being Adopted (Washington was the guy that was responsible for adopting it, but decided not to). As a result, The Articles of Confederation are still contemporary law(!)

Shays's Rebellion was the last battle of the Revolution, the most important, and ironically, WE lost. King George I assumed the exact same role as George III, with similar responses from those freedom minded folks that had just spent several years and tens of thousands of lives fighting the Brit monarchy.

To answer your questions following: the law that was enFORCED after the end of the Shays's Rebellion was a combination of common law, admiralty law (this is not conspiracy, but fact, this became the modern UCC), and certain portions of the Constitution and Articles of Confed.

More specifically, since you asked:

A: This time period the provisional military authority excercised power, during hostilities.

B: During the interim period of Shays's Rebellion (1786-1787), the nominal authority was enshrined in the Articles of Confederation. Since most of the legal authority in prosecuting the war against the "rebels" was local, the State of Mass. provided the money and troops for putting it down. The State of Vermont was beneficiary of this rebellion, and one can posit that Vermont's strong vein of independence was a result of welcoming those fugitives into her bosom. Vermont was the only one of the 13 original states that was not previously a colony. Interestingly enough, this rebellion is the origin of Jefferson's famous quote about ensuring the Tree of Liberty was watered from time to time. Washington, in contrast, used it as an excuse to encourage a strong, centralized government.

C: After Washington assumed his role of military Dictator, the authority to exercise and interpret the law fell to Washington himself and Congress Assembled.

The whole mass of law did not get around to being codified until starting in 1874. This is when what would become the US Code started to be compiled. You can see (some of) what laws have been used this whole time:

The Declaration of Independence (That freed us from exterior oppression)

The Articles of Confederation (Which took a little of the total freedome enshrined in the Dec. of Ind. and in turn provided a loose organization)

The Northwest Ordnance (Which essentially was identical to the Constitution of 1787, and was a blank check to some of the new Territories such as Ohio and Michigan)

The Constitution of 1787 (which set out to revise and replace the Art. of Confed. but never did, and was simply used as guidelines along with the other three)

This was in force until 1933, when the US Code was supplanted (at least in Courts) with the UCC. As a result, all prior court cases could no longer be used as precedent, since it was a different law form being used from that point forward.

Regarding money- interestingly, you are completely correct. Everything comes from the people. The people are the grantors of the credit- when you "take out" a loan, it is you that is actually lending the money to them. Corporations are "dead" entities, and require our living signatures, our labor, our vitality, to continue. So everything you mentioned above is 100% correct. The people ALREADY hold all the power. The monopoly money is not money. There is no money. The money went away in '33 with the gold. All we have are our signatures, and our labor as living, breathing humans. That is the only worth that exists.

I hope this post answered *some* of your questions. Again, I encourage people to check out Ed Rivera. His research is spot on, and there is non of the Patriot drivel, religious fervor, or tinfoil maunderings so prevalent in so many other "interpretations" of where we are.

My best to all here.

Never satisfied

In the scientific method there are a few things that can be proven as absolute fact, but even so one scientist should never be satisfied to a point at which contrary evidence is willfully ignored, especially if the contrary evidence persists and grows exponentially.

Two things I am not satisfied with as far as this conversation goes thus far.

1.
It is never "what" rather it is "who" enforces. That understanding, as far as I have seen so far, reinforces the concept of voluntary agreement, as a very competitive behavioral adaptation compared to the opposite mode of behavior. I want to know what is the UCC, this thing that overpowered the US Code, but that can wait until I'm done commenting. I now have the Edrivera.com web page bookmarked.

2.
Money is Purchasing Power if it is anything at all. The best money, by that measure, purchases more than the worst money.
Here is where it may help people in knowing how serious the problem of Legal Crime really is, but also how easily that problem can be fixed. I think it is a potential support of Legal Crime to say that the Dollar isn't money. If criminals will kill people to get it, it probably has the power to purchase, therefore it is money by that measure. A simple comparison between Gold as money (made legal as payment of voluntary agreements) and Fraudulent paper receipts as money can show how bad things are, and how easy it is to fix things. One money is much more powerful, so why not use it, and the other money is much less powerful, so why are we choosing to use the much less powerful money? Are we that stupid?

How much less powerful is the fraudulent money?

It is negative purchasing power over time to those who buy it, not to those who sell it.

Like buying money in the form of water, for example, the seller owns the only lake on the planet, the only source of water, and all the sources of rain flow back to that one lake. Each buyer pays for a gallon of water the day the purchase is made, but the stuff evaporates and the person owning the lake can buy the water back later, as it was sold in the past at full price and it can be bought back at half price when half of it evaporates; meanwhile the evaporated water fills the lake back up. That is a sweat deal if people can be tricked or forced into buying into it.

In that sense money is only money to the single banker, and his or her cohorts, while all the customers have negative money. Positive money for the owners of the story only. Negative money for all the customers. It is still money by the measure of purchasing power. It is still powerful. It takes 363 Tons of it, all packed up on 100 dollar bills, wrapped in cellophane, on wooden pallets, shipped to Iraq, in order to buy some things, tons of it, it takes tons of it, sometimes, to buy some things, but it is still money by that measure.

Joe

EDRIVERA.COM

Worth reading

Joe

Collapse without Competition

What happens if there is competition?

This is the part of the discussion that turns thing around, in a big way, if enough people (the majority?) figure it out in time.

The Federal Reserve System of Legal Extortion is on the schedule to collapse because it is the only legal record of Economic Activity in America (or U.S.A. Inc. LLC).

If someone, or some group, want to destroy the American Economy they would need the power to do so, and that power is handed to them on a fake silver platter.

All the dupes use the one fake money, and therefore all the dupes have BANKED on that one BET.

All IN, means all out, when the bet turns out to be a fraud.

So, logically, what is the fix?

Disconnect the Honest Productive People in America from the Dishonest Frauds who invent, produce, and maintain that connection.

How?

Easy.

The Connection is that One Legal Money.

Invent, produce, and maintain an alternative, or two, or three, or one for each State in the Republic.

What is the difference between absolute despotism and Liberty?

Choices.

What happens if instead of there being only one legal money, a fraudulent money, and there being 2 legal moneys, one fraudulent, and one that is Honest?

The choice of opting out of the Economic Collapse.

A.
You will be Economically Collapsed - no or else.

B.
No thanks, I, and everyone else making this choice, prefer to prosper instead of volunteering to join the Economic Collapse.

Why is this difficult to see?

Answer:
A lot of the purchasing power that has been stolen, all these centuries, is invested in making the fraud difficult to see, since the fraud only works when there are more dupes than the few who profit from the fraud.

Try starting a discussion with your family members as to their understanding of how competition in money markets work, as they are graded by their teachers in school on important matters in the subject of Political Economy.

Classify the answers to vital questions as such:

A.
False, and therefore supporting the ongoing legal fraud that is on a schedule to ruin the American Economy in a very big way.

B.
True, and therefore proving how the Economic Collapse can be avoided completely by every single intended victim, by merely choosing an Honest money - made legal.

Joe

Objectivists... Hopelessly Sectarian

The undercurrent of dismissive-ness exhibited by so called "objectivists" towards Ron Paul is irrational (Randian pun intended).

Ron Paul and Ayn Rand would agree on 99% of the issues, yet, because Ron does not support intervening for Israel's defense and advocating total, pre-emptive war on civilians, objectivists reject him and all libertarians.

This is Rand's (and probably more so Peikoff's) festering ideological contradiction. And let's not forget Rand argued contradictions don't exist. Sad.

I don't trust objectivists. They place their ethnocentrism above their ethics.

Love your moniker.

Very clever.

What's your source

for your claim that Rand would support intervening on half of Israel? Rand was in favor of selfishness, including in foreign policy. To use our money and soldiers to defend Israel would be altruistic.

See Peikoff

Peikoff argues that Arabs are "tribal" savages, without an understanding of "property rights". Therefore, America must support property rights by defending those who understand them such as Israel. Defending Israel is defending property rights against irrational savagery.

http://www.peikoff.com/essays_and_articles/israels-and-ameri...

http://ariwatch.com/ThisIsOurAlly.htm

Peikoff (Rand's anointed heir and the Objectivist moral dictator-supreme) argues for total war. He was 100% pro Iraq war. He advocated the firebombing of Tokyo and the killing of 265,000 civilians for Christ's sake.

Peikoff (the chosen Objectivist prophet) argues that passive capitulation on the behalf of peaceful citizens makes them culpable in the atrocities committed by their government. Tus, total war on "passive" citizens is A O.K.

That is outright collectivism.

http://forum-network.org/lecture/leonard-peikoff-america-ver...

Objectivism is a club of wishy-washy, N.Y. psuedo-libertarians who refuse to accept the full implications of the non-initiation-of-force principle. It's "libertarianitism" that permits "zionism" and other nationalistic and collectivist ideological contradictions. It's an absurd, self-contradictory, organization