Please explain how the Fed is a rip off exactly
Posted July 22nd, 2008 by social engineer
output
I understand that it is just plain unnatural for a small group of private businessmen to be given the power to decide how much "money" exists in a country....
I understand that the endless printing of "money" makes it "worth" less and less an less...
I understand that this is what inflation is...
But what I need help to understand is how exactly does this system give this small group of people an unfair advantage themselves?
Is it primarily the fact that it enables government to spend unlimited amounts of money, therefore enabling these bankers to make unlimited amounts of interest issuing this credit?
Then, is it primarily the fact that such a dynamic will inevitably lead to a financial collapse, thus enabling these same bankers to buy everything for fire sale prices?
Can I please hear everyone opinions on this topic?
I need to know because I'm in the process of writing an essay that needs to be able to explain this very thoroughly and simply at this point.
Also, please check out this bit of history concerning the Rothschilds:
1815: The five Rothschild brothers work to supply gold to both Wellington’s army (through Nathan in England) and Napoleon’s army (through Jacob in France), and begin their policy of funding both sides in wars.
Due to the fact that these brothers had banks spread out across Europe this gave them the facility to set up an unrivalled network of secret routes and fast couriers. These Rothschild couriers were the only merchants allowed to pass through the English and French blockades.
It was these couriers who also kept Nathan Mayer Rothschild up to date with how the war was going so he could use that intelligence to buy and sell from his position on the stock exchange in accordance with that intelligence.
At that time British bonds were called consuls and they were traded on the floor of the stock exchange. Nathan Mayer Rothschild instructed all his workers on the floor to start selling consuls. They made all the other traders believe that the British had lost the war so they started selling frantically.
Therefore the consuls plummeted in value which was when Nathan Mayer Rothschild discreetly instructed his workers to purchase all the consuls they could lay their hands on. When news came through that the British had actually won the war, the consuls went up to a level even higher than before the war ended leaving Nathan Mayer Rothschild with a return of approximately 20 to 1 on his investment.
This gave the Rothschild family complete control of the British economy, now the financial centre of the world following Napolean’s defeat, and forced England to set up a new Bank of England, which Nathan Mayer Rothschild controlled. Nathan Mayer Rothschild would later state,
“I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply.”
The Rothschilds also use their control of the Bank of England to replace the method of shipping gold from country to country and instead used their five banks spread across Europe to set up a system of paper debits and credits, the banking system of today.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Looks like you have made an excellent start
For a well rounded historical perspective, I recommend printing these out and reading them at your leisure:
http://www.lysanderspoone...
http://www.geocities.com/...
************
"What is the task of higher education? To make a man into a machine. What are the means employed? He is taught how to suffer being bored."
-- Friedrich Nietzsche
This will help you
This will help you understand the fed in simple terms in downloadable audio : http://www.dailypaul.com/...
www.whokilledtheconstitut...
www.revolutionbroadcastin...
www.constitutionrevolutio...
www.revolutionmarch.com
Dr. Steve Parent
preferred:Watch this and
preferred:
Watch this (Money Masters) and let me know if you learned anything..
http://video.google.com/v...
"You are a den of vipers. I intend to rout you out and by the Eternal God I will rout you out. If the people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system, there would be a revolution before morning." --Andrew Jackson,
1828
You will never have anything I do not lend you....
...and for every dollar I lend you you pay me back $1.05
Poof! You're a slave! You'll never 'own' anything. Everything will be mine, and you will work your ass off for the privilege of holding onto it for me, making me rich in the process.
That about sum it up for you?
This site will explain it
http://webofdebt.wordpres...
As will Ellen H Brown's book Web of Debt
Creature from Jeckyll Island
Get a copy of this book and read it. It explains in great, and suprisingly unboring (is that a word?), detail the workings of the FED.
This book was also my first thought
for you when researching this topic.
The owners of the Reserve charge interest on the notes (duh) they provide, except they don't provide a way to pay off the interest, thus you always owe. You are forever in debt to them. This is the biggest scam I have ever heard of.
+5%
Read this: http://famguardian.org/Su...
It's the simplest, and one of the best, explanations of the fiat money scheme.
If I am the sole issuer of currency, and upon loaning $100 to a group of people (society) I demand repayment at 5% interest in one year, there is no way for that to be repaid. They buy, they sell, they make loans to each other and such, but at the end of the year the result is always the same. At least one person, and maybe more depending on the size of the group, will default on their loan. This is because my total demand is for $105, but seeing as I only lent out $100 such demand cannot be met. As a result I become the owner of whatever real asset (land, real estate, cars, etc...) the defaulting individual(s) had leveraged as collateral. So without doing anything I made my "money" back plus some poor schmucks home.
But the game doesn't end there. In order for this group to continue to use my currency, as opposed to returning to trade and barter (or heaven forbid another currency), they have to borrow it all over again the next year and the cycle repeats itself until finally, with the help of compound interest, I own it all; lock, stock and barrel. I start with the land. Then I move to real estate, corporations, and finally the government itself...which in practice I owned early on.
The practice of borrowing to pay off loans is a temporary solution at best and may benefit the individual, but society as a whole can never escape so long as they continue to use interest-bearing, debt-based, fiat currencies as their sole source of credit.
...and they say War is a racket...
inflation
This short video should be specific enough.
http://www.youtube.com/wa...
Drop the conspiracy theory stuff
It's not like that. All it is is that the Fed sometimes prints too much money and sometimes too little. This causes exagerrates business cycle, meaning bubbles and severe recessions. And it gives government access to a "printing press" so it can spend all it wants. The more money government has to spend, the more damage it can do to liberty. Big government = less liberty. During all this the dollar is devalued over the long term. Yes, some people have an advantage in that those who get the money first get to take the value from people's money who get it last. There's nothing sinister behind it. It's just a well-meaning atttempt at central planning that is pretty destructive.
On the site 21 hours
And already making trouble? Why don't you go back to FOX news and see what floats to the top of the bowl.
“May I comment on that?
CommissiononPresidentialDebates
NationalBallotAccess
NOTA
BlackBoxVoting
That's funny!
That's the best Rudley Jilt-me-honey I've ever heard!
Say what?
Nothing sinister? Well then, you would be disagreeing with Ron Paul and the entire Austrian school of economics.
You shouldn't really be commenting, because it is plain you don't understand it in the slightest. It's not the "government" -- it's a government granted private monopoly. My suggestion? Read The History of Money and Banking in the United States, by Murray Rothbard. Or try the Mises Institute website, if you're not particularly ambitious.
______________________________________________________
Don't waste time with Obama, McCain, Nader or Barr - join the Campaign For Liberty! http://www.campaignforlib... The Constitution is more important than voting for the evil of 4 lessers.
When I said "the government,"
I was referring to the Congress, not the Fed. I was saying the government has exclusive access to the Fed's printing press. And because of legal tender law, that money is monopolized. That's how our money is devalued. By the way, that makes the Fed part of the government too for all practical purposes.
The Fed Itself
. . . decides when to expand and contract credit and money. The Fed's monopoly has the force of law, but it is by no means the government. . . Please do check out the mises website, if you're disinclined to read in greater depth. It will help clarify it for you.
______________________________________________________
Don't waste time with Obama, McCain, Nader or Barr - join the Campaign For Liberty! http://www.campaignforlib... The Constitution is more important than voting for the evil of 4 lessers.
Although I'm not sure
Fortune Favors the Bold
a more politicised central bank would be much better.
It would be better in that
It would be better in that there would be less sleight of hand. . . . But yes, there should be no "central bank."
______________________________________________________
Don't waste time with Obama, McCain, Nader or Barr - join the Campaign For Liberty! http://www.campaignforlib... The Constitution is more important than voting for the evil of 4 lessers.
"Nothing sinister"
Wow! Perhaps you should do more reading of Ron Paul so when you are on a site for him, you'd at least know what he stands for.
You may want to read about Andrew Jackson and what he thought of the Fed, I guess he didn't know what he was talking about either.
Do some research
that statement is ridiculous. Im glad that you are such an optimist and that we at least agree that the FED is a bad thing.
I'm not so sure
Fortune Favors the Bold
It seems historically, especially in the creation of the Fed, that it was indeed a "conspiracy" by banking interest to gain power.
"A well-meaning attempt"?
You have got to be kidding me. You just made the strangest statement with that paragraph that I've ever read on this web site, and THAT is saying something.
Congratulations.(?)
_________________________
Moobi
"In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." -- Thomas Jefferson
The public wanted it
The idea behind the Fed was to stablizing the monetary system, because there were several monetary crises before the Fed existed. As it turned out, the Fed creates more problems than it solves.
After the Federal Reserve was created
to stabilize the monetary and banking systems, we had the Great Depression. The idea for a new central bank was handed to the politicians by the banksters, and the politicians tried to sell it to the American people. You need to read up on the subject.
The public didn't "want" it
The public didn't "want" it -- the large banks did. Again, start doing some reading.
______________________________________________________
Don't waste time with Obama, McCain, Nader or Barr - join the Campaign For Liberty! http://www.campaignforlib... The Constitution is more important than voting for the evil of 4 lessers.
Bottom line:
A country can NEVER get out of debt due to its nature and it is issued by a "foreign" entity that does not have the good of the citizens in mind.
Either one of those should be reason enough that Jackson spent half his life trying to rid the U.S. of the FED....and he did it.....until that weasel Woodrow Wilson sold the U.S. out.....apparently in exchange for his presidency.
Only the gov;t has the right to print money which is accountable to the people and thereby controlled by the people. (Of course, that's in dreamland USA)
Only the government has the right to print money?
I disagree. Dr. Paul disagrees too, as he supports the right of privately-created money. Remember the Ron Paul dollar? Dr. Paul wrote an article defending it.
The Constitution does not forbid private instutions from creating money. If you're for truly free markets, you have to allow the market to produce the money.
The problem with the Fed is not that they're creating money, per se, but that that money is given special monopoly privilege by the legal tender law. That's one of the reasons why the Fed is not truly private, but a quasi private/government institution.
Have you tried printing any money and using it in some kind
of commercial transaction? Art. 1, Sec. 8 gives Congress the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof. In addition, the States are denied the ability to create the money supply since Art. 1, Sec. 10 does not allow States to accept any Thing but gold and silver coin as a tender in payment of debt. Those provisions regarding gold and silver coin have long since been corruptly neutralized, but even the Fed does *not* have the power to *print* money. The Bureau of Printing and Engraving does the actual printing of currency, based upon orders from the Fed. It then sells the notes to the Fed at about 4 cents per note, regardless of denomination.
_________________________________________
"An economy built on fiat money is a society on its way to ashes."
What's your point?
There is no law against printing your own proprietary money.
Please post, preferred
Please show us in print where the Constitution allows for private institutions to create money (legal tender). I'll be waiting......for a long time.
And the Ron Paul dollars were not being sold as "legal tender," just selling based on the silver content and not to be used as said legal tender. Ron Paul NEVER defended them based on producing legal tender as you are trying to suggest. He defended them based on their non-legal tender status as he knows very well that the Constitution only allows the gov't to coin/print legal tender/money.
The FED sure makes a lot of quasi-private profit. Yeah, the FED makes all the profit and the gov't tells them how much to print for their wars and welfare. Yeah, that's some partnership. Oh, and then the People get to pay it all back through inflation and taxes.
If you are going to make statements, please try to make them truthful and untwisted. If you are that misinformed, please go back to school; but a different school than the mindless one you've gone to.
Some of you folks do not
Some of you folks do not understand the constitution. It is a list of laws the “FEDERAL GOVERNMENT must live by. Article 8 prohibits the states from coining money and issuing bills of credit. It also prohibits states them from taking anything but gold and silver as legal tender. It does not forbid them from taking money other then Federal Reserve notes which are in fact in violation of the constitution because they do not represent gold or silver they are bills of credit from thin air. It also does not prohibit the states from taking any manner of gold or silver as legal tender, congress can only regulate the value there of . It does not prohibit private individuals or institutions from doing any of those things prohibited to the states. Ever write a check? That is a bill of credit.
All a state needs to do is exercise their sovereignty under the tenth and protect their citizens from unconstitutional alphabet agencies, allow competing currencies and the citizens could implement their own sound money system.
I am in fact working on a plan to get our state back on sound money so as to avoid the brunt of the coming inflationary depression.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
-----
Prepare For the Coming Storms, Join New FreelandersSelf Reliance & Preparedness Forums
I wasn't talking about legal tender.
The Constitution places restrictions on government. It is not restrictions on the people. The people have the right to print their own proprietary money. I wasn't talking about counterfeiting legal tender. I was talking about you printing off some BobW dollars on your computer and trading them without whoever will accept them. Or making coins that don't try to pass themselves as official U.S. coins, and using them for transactions. Or a private bank printing their own own money, like they used to do before the Fed existed. There's no laws against this, and it's exactly what would be happening if legal tender laws did not exist (which by the way Paul says he would like to see eliminated).
And no the Fed itself is not profiting. Who is profiting from the Fed is the mainly the government. It has access to the Fed's "printing press" to spend without limit. Who else profits is those who get to use the money first, to buy assets.
preferred
So again, where was that which you talk about in the Constitution? That's what I thought. Your info. is completely WRONG and you've been busted, weasel. If stupidity had a middle name, it would be "preferred."
For anyone on this site that desires truth, do not listen to this moron.
Good Lord, what have you
Good Lord, what have you gotten yourself into? You know nothing about this, obviously. Why do you persist on commenting about a subject you haven't studied in anger for five minutes?
I hardly know where to begin. Check this story out, for instance, about the Fed's minions seizing an "ilegal currency" -- http://politicalticker.bl... I realize you're not a Ron Paul supporter, but how could you not have known this? And you don't know that the member banks of the Fed profit? Why are you doing this? Aren't you the least bit embarrassed?
Have you given any thought to reading something about this?
______________________________________________________
Don't waste time with Obama, McCain, Nader or Barr - join the Campaign For Liberty! http://www.campaignforlib... The Constitution is more important than voting for the evil of 4 lessers.
Obviously you're lost.
Read this and get informed: http://www.usagold.com/fe...
And the reason that "illegal currency" was seized was because it was made to too closely resemble official U.S. legal tender. I've never seen a seizure of Disney Dollars.
Memo: Disney dollars do not purport to be currency.
Again, why are you doing this? Why don't you read about the subject before you comment?
______________________________________________________
Don't waste time with Obama, McCain, Nader or Barr - join the Campaign For Liberty! http://www.campaignforlib... The Constitution is more important than voting for the evil of 4 lessers.
Does it?
Fortune Favors the Bold
This is one question i am a little confused on. Ron Paul obviously supports competing currencies, but it would seem on the surface of it that only congress, under the constitution, has the power to coin money. This was put into place as a response to one of the perceived weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation, that each state was printing their own money, and it didn;t work out so well.
JohnGalt300 on FED
Although not sure, I think that Ron Paul is suggesting competing currencies as long as the FED is in place. He's suggesting that if people had the choice of commodity backed currency vs. thin air, they would take the prior every time. And as long as the FED produces tender with no regard for the Constitution, why shouldn't others be allowed.
Feel free to jump in and comment if you know more about his thinking on this than I.
And if the Fed is not in place
then money woud be produced by the market, i.e. by private institutions. TRUE private institutions, not quasi government/private institutions like the Fed.
Dr. Paul has said that the money could be produced by the market. "Hayek actually would allow the marketplace to develop the competing currencies, and I think that's not a bad idea either. So I sort of support the Hayekian viewpoint. " http://www.youtube.com/wa...
preferred
When one contributes only lies and misinformation to the site with no intention of learning, in my opinion, you have lost your right to post here. I can only hope that Mr. Nystrom sees it the same after reading your ridiculous posts.
I don't exactly
Fortune Favors the Bold
I sometimes wish i could do an interview. there are several questions I have that i would like to ask him on policy stuff.
The following article, by Murray Rothbard, will give a
pretty good overview of how the Fed and the fractional reserve banking system is "a rip off":
http://www.lewrockwell.co...
Best regards.
_________________________________________
"An economy built on fiat money is a society on its way to ashes."
All
I can say...is this is why I am at the DAILYPAUL. You guys answered this question perfectly!
We're having this converstion in our meet up's forum...
This is my problem with it:
If the FED had done nothing but great things since 1913, I would still be totally against it - zero inflation, economic prosperity for all - I would still be against it. It is a one size fits all system being forced upon everyone. It removes choice, and it does so by force (as evidenced by the Liberty Dollar confiscation, and the Roosevelt gold confiscation). And that is what I think is most dangerous not only to freedom, but to our very survival. They could get it right 99.9% of the time, but when they do make a mistake, it is devastating to everyone (except the owners of our society of course), because we were not allowed to opt out of that system.
A similar concern is raised by Robert S. McNamara: http://www.foreignpolicy....
- regarding how our nuclear defense system is operated.
But putting the concern of centralized control aside, why is the argument of economic prosperity over individual freedom always considered legitimate? Why do intelligent people always insist that because we have cars, high definition TVs, computers, and satellites that we're better off?
We get ripped off because they get to use the money first.
It is spent at its current value when the banksters get to use it first. By the time it gets to us the devaluation due to more money that has been through the economy has set in. They get face value, we get less. That is how we get ripped off.
That
Fortune Favors the Bold
and every time they create money, they are creating a new "public debt," Every dollar they "create" is a future obligation of the US taxpayer.
I concur, to answer the
I concur, to answer the question I believe this is simplest five sentences you can use to briefly and succinctly as possible, describe what happens.
http://bullnotbull.blogsp...
CommissiononPresidentialDebates
NationalBallotAccess
NOTA
BlackBoxVoting
Just remebered...
The gold standard was the factor that limited the amount of currency that could be issued to the amount of gold available, thereby limiting the amount of debt that the federal government could incur, and also the amount of credit that banks could issue...
Yeah, I'm gonna have to watch money masters or something again...
Credit card debt
Any American money that say Federal Reserve is like using a credit card , there is interest attached to foreign interests. Any American made dollars died with Kennedy.
Is it time to make American made dollars again ??
Rip Off
Read this it details the Federal Reserve,the 16th Amendement and the CFR and they are all related to each other.
http://blog.myspace.com/i...