An idiot with good intentions is still a moron. YouTube George Selgin on free banking. At least he's an economist and, not a fool. (I think this guy is a nice fool.)
Why won't you answer my question about "Weights and Measures?" Are you not intellectually honest?
Why won't you answer my question about the Federalist parties other violations of the clear intent of the Constitution?
Why did the intellectual leader of the Federalists, Hamilton, refer to the Constitution as a "worthless fabric?" Is that your champion of the Constitution?
Why did the American people reject the Federalists after a very short party lifespan?
Do you deny that the old Spanish milled dollar was chosen as the official currency? Do you understand that private mintage was common at the time and up until the 1860's? Do you understand that the dollar was defined as 371 1/4 grains of fine silver? Do you understand that the Coinage Act of 1792 merely codified this commonly understood fact?
Answer my question about Weights and Measures? It was clearly referring to the weight of silver/gold in coins? Weight of paper? HA!
The government cannot prime the pump with temporary "goodpaying" jobs. 1.6 trillion in infrastucture ok I understand sounds great but these would be a band aid on a gun shot wound. These jobs would dry up and overnight we'd have great roads at a cost of well over that 1.6 trillion and a bunch of overpaid and no longer employed ditch diggers that will be on unemployment for 99 weeks.
@jimmyrtle In Lewis v. United States,the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated that: "The Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the FTCA the Federal Tort Claims Act, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations." I have my doubts about the legality & federalness of the federal reserve.
I still have my doubts...." the Federal Reserve Banks are "independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations", and there is not sufficient "federal government control over 'detailed physical performance' and 'day to day operation'" of the Federal Reserve Bank for it to be considered a federal agency"
If the Federal Reserve is lending money to foreign banking without Congress or the President then I must question the federalness of the federal reserve
@jimmyrtle No, they don't need approval. They are an independent banking govt. with the federal government.
The member banks draw up the short-list of candidates for the President to nominate to the Fed Board of Governors and the Fed Chairman. The rest of the positions are filled with Federal Reserve member bank positions chosen by people who run the banks.
See the problem?
The Federal Reserve Act serves the interest of large banks. It created a banking/money cartel.
@jimmyrtle Also, see "Money, Banking, and the Federal Reserve" on YouTube. It's done by economists from the Austrian school of economics. It's about 45-minutes long and is an academic presentation. It's a little slow to start, but it is worth the investment of time. Your understanding of the system will be changed forever.
It isn't accountable to D.C. This is a myth. You are confusing session with Congress with them being able to overule them, or Fed officials having to disclose most information. They don't.
It took a FOIA lawsuit by Bloomberg and Fox in 2009 to get a partial audit. The Fed has all kinds of internal audits. The other audits only deal with trivial matters. The lawsuit is how we found out the Fed bailed out foreign banks with 5 trillion dollars.
@jimmyrtle The GAO audit and Fed internal audits are a joke.
The GAO doesn't include fully include discount window operations, funding facilities, its open-market operations, currency swaps, manipulations in gold/silver market, and its agreements with foreign banks.
In other words, the GAO audit doesn't include the things that MATTER.
We only found out that the Fed bailed out foreign banks to the turn of 5 trillion (!!) because of a FOIA lawsuit by Bloomberg/Fox.
@jimmyrtle Why are those things important? Because those are the primary functions of the Federal Reserve. It is the New York Fed that is the real power. The Fed Chairman and the Fed Board of Governors are merely the political arm of what amounts to a banking/money cartel.
It is very relevant to know Fed open market operations, gold and currency swaps, etc. Those are the only things that really matter. Americans should know that the Fed is bailing out foreign instiutions.
@jimmyrtle Yes. loans are repayed (most of the time), but the loans are created with money created out of nothing. Who gets access to loans at almost 0% interest? Does the avg. American? It represents a theft of purchasing power and puts the American citizen on the line for private concerns.
The Fed also buys up toxic assets of private firms that are illiquid (read: nearly worthless), then puts them on the American citizen's account. It's theft!
@jimmyrtle I didn't say that the discount window was 0%. I was referring to Fed Funds Rate.
The FFR is how the Fed manipulated rates downward. It sends a false signal that more savings exist than actually do. Real savings can not be duplicated with artificial banking procedures.
In interest rate's economic function is to coordinate production across time. It should move up and down based on the supply of available savings and the demand for credit.
@jimmyrtle The Fed can collateralize anything it wants. It bought toxic mortgage backed securities from the balance sheets of banks. So, it doesn't just by federal securities.
It's not supposed to directly purchase U.S. Treasury securities. It can get around this by announcing POMO (Permanent Open Market Operations) ahead of purchases. This creates an artificial demand for tsy's pushing down yields. Investors then front-run the Fed via POMO. They get the spread without having to do anything.
@joepeeler34 The Fed could, theoretically buy anything they want, but, in reality, they only buy Government guaranteed debt. That would be Fannie debt, Freddie debt and US Treasuries.
"It's a gift!" Ha! The Fed creates money out of nothing to buy U.S. Treasuries. When the note is paid the Fed gets interest to be paid for by taxpayers with money that was originally created out of nothing. There is no free lunch. The govt. is just monetizing its debt. Americans get an inflation tax.
Who gets the new money before it has lost its purchasing to convey the increased currency supply? Those with large contracts with govt. and the financial services sector. We get inflation tax.
@jimmyrtle It's a gift? Where did the tax revenues come from to pay off the bonds that the Fed purchased with money created out of nothing? We pay interest on money created out of nothing on debt that the Fed buys.
The Fed gave over 90% of its earnings to the Treasury.
The tax revenue to pay Fed owned bonds comes from the same place as the tax revenue to pay the bonds everybody but the Fed holds. The difference is, the Fed held bonds end up giving 90% of their interest back to the Treasury.
We pay interest on all the money the Treasury borrows.
Is that the Fed's fault or the fault of Congress? LOL!
Yes, banks don't borrow from the Fed through the FFR. That is the interbank lending rate. And where did the credit come from for the banks to lend at such a low rate given that the savings rate is very low. It shouldn't and wouldn't be that low absent the Fed's creation of credit money out of nothing.
The only way that the Fed can move rates lower is to artificially increased the credit money supply.
Has saved capital increased? No. It sends false signals. It's price setting.
The discount window rate is negative in real terms as well.
Banks profit from the artificially low short-term rates. It's harder for the central bank to move long-term rates. The spread between the two is how the banks generate much of their profits. It's has turned Walll Street into traders of debt and underwriters of govt. debt.
The beneficiaries of artificially low rates are finance and govt. It's no coincidence that banks are always agitating for an increase in the debt ceiling.
You mentioned that there were numerous errors in the video. We have established that your point about the Fed having a budget in any real sense of the world isn't relevant.
Your point about the GAO doing an audit is irrelevant as well given the audit doesn't detail the things that matter. What about foriegn loans, currency swaps, forays into the gold/silver markets to manipulate the price, etc.?
@jimmyrtle Other govt. agencies can't create money out of nothing to bail out those private interests that compose what is the Federal Reserve system. The Federal Reserve Act created a money/banking cartel. It's not consitutional and it serves to concentrate wealth and power.
We have went over why the GAO audit is a joke. Google GAO's recommendations for more transparency at the Fed. The audit is a joke. Look up the Federal Reserve and exemptions to normal GAO audits. It's gets exemptions.
@jimmyrtle "Extinguished" is just another word for repaid in finance.
They are not accountable to Congress because no one can overrule them.
You think they are accountable because the President nominates the FED Board of Governors and the Chairman. Yes, but the list that the president draws from is a creation of the FED.
And the Presidents of the Fed regional branches are chosen by the banks that compose the Federal Reserve System.
@jimmyrtle So, if the Congress passes a law that says that isn't authorized by the Constitution, then it's legal because they said so. If that's true, then why ever bother amending the Constitution?
If the congress passes a law prior to the 16th Amendment imposing an income tax, is it legal? Why then would they have bothered with the 16th Amendment?
Why did the Congress bother with the prohibition amendment? Couldn't they have just passed a law?
@jimmyrtle No, it isn't. Show me chapter and verse.
The Constitution mentioned the term dollar twice (once for a now-defunct slave clause and the other for a bail of $20), which begs the question, what was a dollar.
The dollar, which was the old Spanish milled dollar, was defined as 371 1/4 grains of fine silver. The Coinage Act of 1792 later codified what was already commonly understood.
How do you COIN paper? "Weights and Measures" is pointless for paper notes, i.e. bills of credit.
@jimmyrtle They aren't accountable to congress in any real sense of the word. The Fed is accountable to no one because it can't be overruled by any other branch of govt.
The political branch of the Fed (Chairman and Fed Board of Governors) only serves to keep the political class at arm's length from the real power behind the throne, i.e. the New York Federal Reserve.
It is at the New York Fed where the cronies go to feed.
"The savings rate is at a multi-year high." That's true enough but the comparison is from savings rates over the last decade of about 3%. It's up to 6% or so.
And where is that scarce savings going? It's not going to small businesses. It's not going toward much capital investment. It's going to govt., which crowds out others. Govt. engages in present consumption spending, not capital investment. Govt. compounds the problem by subsidizing credit for consumption spending by individuals.
Can you answer me a few questions? Where does real credit derive? Can real savings (delayed consumption) be replace by artificial banking procedures? Can the Fed and its member banks create credit out of nothing by engaging in fractional reserve banking or the Fed's magical ability to create credit out of nothing by crediting member banks' accounts?
What happens when those rates are kept artificially low for a sustained period? What happens when that pretend credit touches real capital?
And where did the Fed get that money? And where did the Fed get the money to buy those Treasuries to begin with?
Let me get this straight: One pseudo agency of govt. (FED) creates money out of nothing to buy debt from another agency of govt. (TSY), then the Fed collects interest on the bonds from taxpayers on money it created out of nothing. It then returns the interest to the TSY minus operating expenses of the FED with principal extinguished.
@jimmyrtle Yes, bonds pay interest. And how did the FED purchase those bonds? Did it produce products that were sold in the market place? That is what those paper notes represent.
Why do we punish counterfeiters? Because they use paper note (claim checks) to claim goods out of the economy, but the put no goods in.
What's the difference between the FED created money out of nothing that benefits those who get the new money first? They didn't put additional goods in the economy.
@jimmyrtle But who benefits from that money created out of thin air? Do I get by debts bought up with money created out of nothing that are then transferred to the books of the taxpayer? It's a great gig if you get it.
The FED serves the interest of the banks and govt. Govt. likes the FED because it can fund part of its operations by way of siegnoriage. It's a stealth tax. Where does that purchasing power go? It's transferred to those who get the new money FIRST before prices rise.
I said that the savings rate is low. It is. That it is higher in comparison to abysmally low savings rates of the last decade doesn't mean they are high in a real sense. You are pointed to a slightly faster turtle and saying, "Watch him go! Ain't he a sprinter!" It's laughable.
People don't save near as much as they would when rates are pushed negative in real terms.
Negative rates mean that the yields aren't higher than the dollar debasement/price inflation rate.
"New regulations." Yep, same old solution. The banking and health care sectors are the most regulated by bureaucrat. They have been for decades. There is no free market in either sector. Which areas are in permanent crisis?
You will have to regulate by bureaucrat when the market's regulation by fear of loss is taken away. That is what the FED and collectivized risk (FDIC) do to the banking sector. It is just that the regulation by bureau won't make the system sound in that environment.
@jimmyrtle My understanding of economics is derived from the reading of hundreds of classical and Austrian economists in addition to countless videos and essays. You?
"It's created by Congress so it's constitutional." LOL! So were the Alien and Sedition Acts. So were the trade association agreements (cartels) during the NIRA. So was the Patriot Act. I could go on and on
The Congress can only change the Constitution by amendment. Just because it passes a law doesn't mean its constitutional.
@jimmyrtle Yes, they passed a bill in clear violation of the expressly enumerated powers.
The Constitution wasn't written to list all the prohibitions placed on the federal government. If it were, it would have had to have been thousands of pages long.
It made far more sense to create a Constitution that expressly enumerated powers with all other powers denied by default.
The amendment process is difficult. So, fed. govt. relies on the federal courts to act as a rubber stamp.
You didn't answer my question. If Congress can just pass a bill with President signing it then why did they bother with the 16th Amendment? Why didn't they just pass a tax law? Why didn't they just pass a law with alcohol prohibition? Why did they amend the Constitution?
Take legal tender laws as another example of a violation of Consitution. Knox v. Lee overturned Griswold v. Hepburn a few years before. Why? Grant installed 2 railroad lawyers on Court because railroads wanted paper notes.
@jimmyrtle There was great debate about that central bank. Hamilton and the Federalists (those who gave the people the Alien and Sedition Acts and run rough-shod over habeus corpus) hated the limits placed on the central government by the Constitution. They always tried to use their shock troops in the federal courts to create a shadow Constitution.
This is why the people rejected the Federalists. Jefferson killed that central bank. Jackson killed Biddle's bank 30-years later.
@jimmyrtle No, the Federalist party created the central bank. The Democrats who won the debate at the Constitutional Convention then ended it. LOL!
The Federalists wanted a much more nationalized government at the Convention. The Jeffersonian/Madisonian position prevailed.
You could just as easily say that some of the Founders composed the Federalist party with them passing the Alien and Sedition Acts making that law consitutional. It wasn't anymore than a central bank.
No, George just didn't understand what the purpose of a central bank was. It benefits the connected few. Hamilton thought debt to be a blessing because he thought the American people to be lazy. He thought debt would make them work harder. Morris and others used the bank as a piggybank. Read through the corruption of this bank.
Hamilton once referred to a the Constitution as a "worthless fabric." That's your great champion of the Constitution? Your ignorance amuses me.
@jimmyrtle An "regulate the value thereof" merely meant to codify the rates of exchagne of various metal coins. The market could just as easily have done that. The market rate of exchange of these coins was merely codified. The exchange rates were determined by the supply/demand for the various monies.
Are you aware that private mintage was common up until the 1860's when the govt. moved to protect its money monopoly by banning competition?
@jimmyrtle And another thing. Fiat paper notes aren't legal either.
Read through Ariticle I, Section 8 sometime. How exactly do you COIN paper notes? What relevants does the phrase "Standards of Weights and Measures" have to paper notes? It's absurd. "Weights and Measures" refers to the metal content of the precious metal coin. "Weights and measure" isn't applied to paper notes.
The Founders were hostile to paper notes (bills of credit) because of their own disastrous experience.
@jimmyrtle The Constitution doesn't give sanction to fiat money. It doesn't explitly prohibit the chewing of gum, either.
Again, the Constitution wasn't a list of all the things the central government couldn't do, nor was it a list of all the things the states couldn't do.
It was meant to empower the central government in a limited sphere. If the power was expressly given, then it was denied by default.
A Constitution is by defintion limited government. It's intended to limit.
@jimmyrtle And I just explained to you what the Founders considered money. The dollar was a weight of silver. It's definition was 371 1/4 grains of fine silver. Calling a fiat paper note that isn't defined as a dollar is akin to identifying a dog as a cat.
"Regulate the value thereof" referred to the codification of the exchange value of the coins. The market set that. The govt. merely put to paper what was already understood.
@jimmyrtle Oh, it simply means create? I see. So it was just coincidence that they didn't COIN paper notes. They COINED COINS. That is absurd. If they inteded for paper notes to be currency, it would have read print or create bills of credit or something to that effect.
It said COIN because silver and gold COINS were the money. The dollar was defined as a weight of silver.
Speaking of "weight," you still haven't answered my question about "Standards of Weights and Measures."
@jimmyrtle Create? Yep, they were given the power to create COINS. And regulate the value thereof didn't mean that they could just willynilly decide that gold would trade at 100 times the rate of silver.
That would be like decreeing that bacon will trade at a 10:1 ratio to eggs forever more. It's absurd.
It simply meant that the govt. would just attest and codify the market exchange rates of precious metal coins.
@jimmyrtle Yes, the term dollar wasn't defined in the Constitution. Neither were any other words for crying out loud. The Constitution is not a dictionary. The terms "liberty," 'property," and "credit" weren't defined either. They used words that were commonly understood.
The term "dollar" was defined as 371 1/4 grains of silver. Franklin chose the old Spanish milled dollar as the national currency because it was the most commonly used money at the time and most contracts were priced in it.
@jimmyrtle And you aren't even attempting to challenge me on the Federalist party and their rejection by the American people. You aren't challending me about the Jeffersonian/Madisonian system prevailing at the Convention. You aren't challenging about the quote by Hamilton referring to the Constitution as a "worthless fabric." Other Federalist thought the same.
You still won't answer my question about the relevance of the phrase "Standards of Weights and Measures."
@jimmyrtle No, SOME of the Founders in the Federalist parties created the first central bank. Many of those Federalists sought to undermine the clear intent of the document. Hamilton's acolyte Marshall and other Federalists in the federal court system sought to create a shadow constitution. Those or like mind have been doing it ever since.
The Democrats closed down that central bank last I checked. The Federalist only "won" because ther were in power for awhile.
@jimmyrtle Yes, and Democrats were opposed to it. Democrats then killed the unconstitutional central bank a short while later.
SOME of the Founders in the Federalist party also created the Alien and Sedition Acts. They violated habeus corpus. Are these constitutional measures
Hamilton and his crew immediately after the Constitution was created deliberately set out to get around the limits of the Constitution. Those "chiselers working underground (Jefferson)" have done the same ever since.
@jimmyrtle Opposed by who? The Dems also opposed the encroachments on habeus corpus and Alien and Sedition Acts by Federalists. If the American people thought they were following the Constittution, why did they reject them after only a few decades? They got a taste of their disregard of the Constitution.
Men like Hamilton went along with the Constitution only because it was the best they could get at the time. They just used office and the courts to reinterpret (disregard) Constitution later.
A central bank is unconstitutional. Show me the power.
It says Congress shall COIN money and "Standards of Weights and Measures." Weights is only "irrelevant" to paper. It is crucial and germaine to real money, i.e. commodity precious metal money.
The Constitution doesn't give the power to Congress to hand this power to what amounts to a govt.-created money/banking cartel.
If you want it to be constitutional, amend the Constitution. Don't pretend it's being followed. It isn't.
@jimmyrtle Mr. Washington's party disagrees with you. Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, and the American people who threw the Federalists out disagree with you.
I guess the Alien and Sedition Acts were constitutional, too. To be consistent, you must hold that position because your Federalist party did that, too.
Where in the Consitution does it say that a central bank is to be created? Where does it say that a state-sanctioned banking cartel can be given that power without amendment?
@jimmyrtle I don't know why you won't answer my question about the Federalist party creating the Alien and Sedition Acts. Was that law consitutional? Afterall, the Federalist party created that law to go after constitutionalists in the Democrat party. Would you like to revive those laws? They must be constitutional, right?
Hamilton was the one behind that bank. He had no regard for the Constitution. He and Marshall viewed is as an obstacle. That's why he called it a "worthless fabric."
@jimmyrtle I don't have to amend it. That would be those who won't intrinsically worthless paper to be a currency. It's not money by the way. A money is a storehouse of value. A paper currency fails that test. It is currency.
I don't have to repeal paper because the laws of economics and physics will do it for me.
Historical fact: average life span of a fiat paper currency is 27-years.
This debt-based paper currency system is collapsing before your eyes. You're too brainwashed to see it
@jimmyrtle Also, you have unwittingly, implicitly proved my point. You are incorrectly claiming that the Congress's intent of "to regulate the value thereof" is a license to manipulate the exchange rates of silver to gold (or copper for that matter). What other "value" could you be referring to other than commodity money.
Paper currency couldn't be issued without a link to commodity money, however distant in its past, because no exchange rates for paper could exist without that connection
@jimmyrtle Nope. It would be absurd to "change the value." It doesn't say change the value. It would be akin to trying to change the value of a washing machine by decree. It's absurd.
Money is a product ( paper notes are only currency). Money came into existence out of a need for a media of exchange. Many things were tried. Gold and silver arose after thousands of years of trial and error
They traded at goods at market prices. Money wasn't a creation of the state. It was an emergent order.
@jimmyrtle That's price fixing. It's as absurd as fixing the price of a car to a bicycle independent of supply and demand.
As I have explained, it is in reference to a codification of market exchange rates. The govt. will codify and attest to the exchange rate of various coins in the market.
Gold and silver are just tradable commodities. They have exchange values with other goods. The govt. didn't create the pricing system anymore than it invented money. They are emergent orders.
@jimmyrtle LOL! You are hopelessly confuse. A dollar was just a DEFINITION of a weight of silver.
A price is a relationship between a medium of exchange and what it is exchanged. There is not price fixing when you DEFINE a dollar as a weight of precious metal. The price of money is free to fluctuate and exchange at different prices relative to goods.
It's like saying a an ounce is fixed to 1/16 of a pound. No, it is just 1/16th of it be definition. The ounce measures as does a money.
The reason that gold and silver (to a lesser extent copper) became monies was due to the fact that they had all the properties that one would want in a money. It wasn't a product of central planning by govt. It was an emergent order.
1) They are fungible
2)Divisible without losing value
3)Finite but enough existed to serve as media of exchange
4) Malleable but durable so easily fashionable into coins
Where in the document does it give explicit approval for a central bank? All powers not expressly given to the central government are reserved to the people and the states.
Also, why did the Founders specifically prohibit the individual states from emitting bills of credit and making any thing but gold and silver money in the Constitution?
Am I to believe that the evils of paper currency were good for central govt. and bad for the states that created it? HA!
@jimmyrtle You don't understand what "regulate the value thereof means." It doesn't mean price setting. It means to codify and attest to the weights and measure of the coins and their exchange rates on the market.
You don't understand. You haven't read enough. I've been reading on this for the last 10-years.
LOL!. If they thought paper was a good thing, then why was precious metal money used? Why did they refer to coins and weights and measures? Why Coinage Act of 1792 to codify it?
@jimmyrtle No, they can't change the exchange rate if they like. That's price fixing. Silver and gold are commodities that have exchange rates set by market transactions. It's like trying to set the price of bacon to eggs at a fixed ration. It creates shortages and imbalances.
Coinage Act was created by Founders. Coinage Act merely codified what was already understood.
Just as the Constitution merely codified already existent common/natural law and natural rights. It didn't invent them.
@jimmyrtle How so? It's true that they foolishly tried to set silver to gold at an artificial peg of 16:1 ratio many years later. Yes, that's true. And that policy was foolish.
That is not what the Founders were referring to however. They were referring to the exchange rates of coins circulating in the market. A silver dollar (proper) would exchange at varying rates depending on the precious metal content of other coins. It was just a reference to the codification of those exchange rates.
@jimmyrtle And you have still not satisfactorily answered my question about COINing money and what was meant by the phrase "Standards of Weights and Measures." You claim that this isn't relevant? Oh, really now?
Were they just bored in the summer of 1787? Did they throw it in for a lark? What possible meaning could it have?
How is "weights and measures" relevant to paper?
If the Coinage Act of 1792 wasn't a codification of what was already understood, why wasn't Constitution amended?
@jimmyrtle Yes, weights can apply to various things of intrinsic value. Salt and tobacco used to be monies (that's where the idiom "not worth his salt" comes from). It would make sense to refer to "weights" when referring to them.
It only makes sense to refer to "weights" when referrencing commodity money.
That is what the Founders were doing. A dollar is defined as a weight of silver.
The weight of an intrinsically worthless paper note (or digital currency) is nonsensical.
@jimmyrtle But they weren't talking about trade. That clause was addressing money. It wasn't addressing the weight of your girlfriend.
Yes, I am glad you looked that up. It's a reference to the codification and attestation of what a dollar is defined as. It will trade in the market relative to other metal coins that were in existence. The dollar proper was one of many coins in the market at the time. Private mintage was common at the time.
Do you think an ounce is a DEFINITION or an arbitrary ratio to a pound? You are asking the equivalent of an ounce being equal to 1/2 a pound. That misses the concept entirely.
The Spanish milled dollar was the most common medium of exchange at the time. That coin had 371 1/4 grains of silver in it. The dollar is an identification and definition of a weight of silver. Other coins would trade against it depending on the metal and amount of gold/silver in that coin. They just codified that.
@jimmyrtle The Democrats were the Constitutionalists that won at the Convention. The Federalists were rejected by the people when they saw what they were doing once in power. That's why there were defunct a short time later. I imagine you think that the Alien and Sedition Act and arogation of habeus corpus by the Federalists was constitutional, too. If you are to be consistent, you must claim that as well.
No words were defined in the constitution. They used langauge that was commonly understood. Do they put definitions of words in to the test of law today? Negatory.
What people like you try to do is keep the same word but change the meaning of it through deliberate misusage.
You still haven't answered by COIN question. Why didn't they say emit bills of credit or print notes if that's what they intended?
What about Weights and Measures? Is the weight of paper relevant? No.
We don't use constitutional specie anymore. That is because the government broke its own laws.
Can you explain why Knox v. Lee overturned Griswold V. Hepburn a few years later? Did the text of the Constitution change? No. The Grant administration owed the railroad lobby. Grant put two railroads lobbyists on the bench and oila! legal tender was "constitutional." What a joke!
Weights and Measures--answer the question. Measure of metal in coins or measure of wood in paper note. LOL!
You still haven't answered my question about "Standards of Weights and Measures." It was referencing the defintion of currnecies, which were defined and exchanged as weights of metal.
By the way, all fiat paper notes, however distant in their past, have a relationship to a commodity money. If you introduced a intrinsically worthless paper note into a system that had no money previously, how would people know what price they would exchange for goods at? Commodity money has no such problem.
What inventory does the FED have? It doesn't experience profits/losses.
Those buys/sells aren't covered for the most part.
We only found out about the Fed's activities in 2009 due to an FOIA by Bloomberg/Fox. We learned that numerous large corporations got credit from the FED with credit money created out of thin air at effectively negative rates.
We learned that the Fed bailout out European banks to the tune of $5 trillion.
@jimmyrtle Then why did we not find out in the GAO audit of all those loans at real negative interest rates to companies like Caterpillare, Harley Davidson, McDonalds, G.E., and on and on until after the FOIA lawsuit?
Why didn't the GAO audit detail inform us of over $5 trillion in loans to foreign institutions?
The GAO audit is a joke. The GAO even said that there needs to be more transparentscy of the Fed. The Fed gets exceptions to GAO that no other govt. bureaucracy gets. Why?
The point that the Fed has no real budget is part of the problem. Money (real money, i.e. commodity money) represents the product of wealth creation, i.e. goods and services in the economy.
Whoever gets the Fed's new funny money first gets it before prices have risen to convey the increased money supply. The rest of us get AFTER prices have risen. Wages prices rise a year or so after other prices. It's a loss of real wages.
Who gets the new money first? Financial services sector.
@jimmyrtle It has no budget by any definition that I understand. It can create as much digital/accounting money as it wants out of thin air.
The Fed can buy Tsy's with money created out of nothing. When the notes are payed, the Fed deducts the interest (on money created out of nothing) and returns it to the Tsy minus operating expense of the Fed.
It doesn't need a budget because it can just credit bank accounts. See? The cost is payed for by inflation.
@joepeeler34 budget: a plan for the coordination of resources and expenditures, the amount of money that is available for, required for, or assigned to a particular purpose
Yes, they can create money out of thin air, but that's not the money they spend to fund their budget.
@jimmyrtle Yes, the cost of the Fed monetizing govt. debt and banker debt is payed for with inflation.
Member banks must also pay fees. The Fed can also purchase debt with money it creates out of nothing. The bond is then payed for by money taken from the taxpayer. The Fed returns the money to the Treasury minus operation expenses of the Fed.
A budget is irrelevant when talking about the Fed because it can create all the currency it wants to bail out whoever it likes.
Regardless of me disagreeing with this man on minor issues gun control, abortion, gay marriage, immigration (the first 3 of which should be left up to individual states IMO and immigration is only a problem because of our current economic system) the only major issue the only one that really needs to be handled by the Federal Government is tearing down the Federal Reserve. I believe that to be the biggest and most important issue.
I don't know. I think Dennis Kucinich has a better chance against GOP candidates so far. I use to be a dedicated Republican but now I just don't care about party anymore. The scales have been removed from my eyes, so to speak.
I don't watch fox news, msnbc or cnn. I get my news online from various sources. Reuters is actually doing a better job covering US news while airing from their BBC network in Britain which is embarrassing to admit. Can we save this country without another civil war?
I lean far more on the right than Mr. Kucinich as a libertarian, but once I found out he's against The Fed and against chem trails, I will have no problem voting for him against any GOP candidate.
Its probably too late , they have been stealing most of Americas wealth and controlling the political , banking , corporate , educational and media system for 100 years.
Even if the FED is abolished they will still have the loot to mess around with the economy. They are worth 100s of times the GDP of the USA.
What ever happens don't look to the UN , world bank or IMF for a solution.
@hablerz we have an emergency. Ron Paul should oversee the fed. he is next in line in his committee which oversees monetary policy. scumbag boener is trying to stop him.
@hablerz You are 100% right...and based on what I'm still seeing..it's not better....I feel like Dennis K and Ron P are the voices in the wilderness..but nobody is listening. It's sad..I love my country but America just isn't America anymore. Corporate takeovers of FOOD, Theiving Bankers, Corporate violations of water rights..yes it's happening here in the United States....Corporations violating our Earth with fracking..I could go on and on..it's sooooo fucked up.
The zionists would just get to him eventually or assassinate him. The situation is already hopeless. Just assault your retarded government and start all over (although the chances are small, as martial law would be imposed under the patriot act and the average citizen would have no chance against the most advanced, well funded and ruthless military of all history.)
Even though this guy's eyes are open, I'm sure there is a sum of money that can make him close his mouth. Then again, unfortunatly, not enough people watch House hearings in spite of everything. The only reason we are all in this mess is because of our own stupidity, greed, and submission.
@notunderarock : there have been many attempts to buy his silence, and attempts on his life - one of which was officially confirmed to him by the FBI - he was also hospitalised after a severe physical beating. Thes things have all happened because his mouth can't be closed. I agree with everything else you said, by the way.
@brainstorm310 - the federal reserve banking system is a quasi-governmental agency; The Federal Reserve is not controlled by private banks, but by a publicly appointed board of governors. Many confuse "owning" and "controlling". Private banks, while they may own shares in the individual Federal Reserve Banks, do not have any control over the Federal Reserve System, much like how a private individual may own shares of a large corporation, but has little say in the day to day operations.
So i liked kucinich once.... but i mean hes a dingus. look at him. he supports the new deal then bashes the fed. Just end the fed and u'll be all good. fucking eccentric opportunist.
मैं हूँ 78 साल पुराना है. देखा है और जीवन में बहुत सुना है. क्या कभी दास अपने स्वामी को मजदूरी दे? गरीब आदमी अमीर प्रसव के लिए अमीर आदमी वेतन और परिश्रम? पैसे नीचे गोबर का ढेर, प्रवाह नहीं करो.
An idiot with good intentions is still a moron. YouTube George Selgin on free banking. At least he's an economist and, not a fool. (I think this guy is a nice fool.)
mattrferr 1 month ago
Sounds like we might be having a real pig roast, America. I pray and hope.
draphaelc 2 months ago
Why won't you answer my question about "Weights and Measures?" Are you not intellectually honest?
Why won't you answer my question about the Federalist parties other violations of the clear intent of the Constitution?
Why did the intellectual leader of the Federalists, Hamilton, refer to the Constitution as a "worthless fabric?" Is that your champion of the Constitution?
Why did the American people reject the Federalists after a very short party lifespan?
joepeeler34 3 months ago
Do you deny that the old Spanish milled dollar was chosen as the official currency? Do you understand that private mintage was common at the time and up until the 1860's? Do you understand that the dollar was defined as 371 1/4 grains of fine silver? Do you understand that the Coinage Act of 1792 merely codified this commonly understood fact?
Answer my question about Weights and Measures? It was clearly referring to the weight of silver/gold in coins? Weight of paper? HA!
joepeeler34 3 months ago
Aww he said that in January 2009. Check out my website mayabell. com
itismepicasso 3 months ago
The government cannot prime the pump with temporary "goodpaying" jobs. 1.6 trillion in infrastucture ok I understand sounds great but these would be a band aid on a gun shot wound. These jobs would dry up and overnight we'd have great roads at a cost of well over that 1.6 trillion and a bunch of overpaid and no longer employed ditch diggers that will be on unemployment for 99 weeks.
cmammen 4 months ago
The fractional reserve system iz an intresting concept.
LyfeIzLike 5 months ago
I love this guy. I wish he would run for president.
clarkisabeast 5 months ago
Paul/Kucinich 2012 end the fed!
jacesk8ter123 5 months ago
The Fed was created by Congress, that's why it's Federal, moron.
jimmyrtle 5 months ago
@jimmyrtle In Lewis v. United States,the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated that: "The Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the FTCA the Federal Tort Claims Act, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations." I have my doubts about the legality & federalness of the federal reserve.
mizfit1010 4 months ago
@mizfit1010
"for purposes of the FTCA the Federal Tort Claims Act"
But for other purposes, they are.
jimmyrtle 4 months ago
@jimmyrtle
I still have my doubts...." the Federal Reserve Banks are "independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations", and there is not sufficient "federal government control over 'detailed physical performance' and 'day to day operation'" of the Federal Reserve Bank for it to be considered a federal agency"
If the Federal Reserve is lending money to foreign banking without Congress or the President then I must question the federalness of the federal reserve
mizfit1010 4 months ago
@mizfit1010 They are independent. That means they don't need Congressional or Presidential approval for their actions.
jimmyrtle 4 months ago
@jimmyrtle No, they don't need approval. They are an independent banking govt. with the federal government.
The member banks draw up the short-list of candidates for the President to nominate to the Fed Board of Governors and the Fed Chairman. The rest of the positions are filled with Federal Reserve member bank positions chosen by people who run the banks.
See the problem?
The Federal Reserve Act serves the interest of large banks. It created a banking/money cartel.
joepeeler34 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@joepeeler34 "The rest of the positions are filled with Federal Reserve member bank positions chosen by people who run the banks"
Wait a minute. Let me get this straight. The people running the Fed are people who understand banking? Wow!
Preventing the collapse of our banking system serves the interest of all of us.
jimmyrtle 3 months ago
@jimmyrtle Also, see "Money, Banking, and the Federal Reserve" on YouTube. It's done by economists from the Austrian school of economics. It's about 45-minutes long and is an academic presentation. It's a little slow to start, but it is worth the investment of time. Your understanding of the system will be changed forever.
joepeeler34 3 months ago
@joepeeler34 Wow, the first 20 seconds and already the errors are piling up.
It is accountable to Congress, not no one.
It has a budget, it just doesn't get money from Congress.
It's audited every year.
Should I even bother watching more?
jimmyrtle 3 months ago
@jimmyrtle Yes, you should continue watching.
It isn't accountable to D.C. This is a myth. You are confusing session with Congress with them being able to overule them, or Fed officials having to disclose most information. They don't.
It took a FOIA lawsuit by Bloomberg and Fox in 2009 to get a partial audit. The Fed has all kinds of internal audits. The other audits only deal with trivial matters. The lawsuit is how we found out the Fed bailed out foreign banks with 5 trillion dollars.
joepeeler34 3 months ago
@joepeeler34 Congress could shut down the Fed tomorrow.
They're audited every year. Google federal reserve audit report
Bailed out? You mean gave them short term loans?
jimmyrtle 3 months ago
@jimmyrtle The GAO audit and Fed internal audits are a joke.
The GAO doesn't include fully include discount window operations, funding facilities, its open-market operations, currency swaps, manipulations in gold/silver market, and its agreements with foreign banks.
In other words, the GAO audit doesn't include the things that MATTER.
We only found out that the Fed bailed out foreign banks to the turn of 5 trillion (!!) because of a FOIA lawsuit by Bloomberg/Fox.
See the problem?
joepeeler34 3 months ago
@joepeeler34 Why would an audit include any of those things?
When IBM is audited, does the audit include info about customer service phone calls? Why not?
Yes, the Fed made short term loans to banks. Foreign and domestic.
Loans that have been repaid, with interest. So what?
jimmyrtle 3 months ago
@jimmyrtle Why are those things important? Because those are the primary functions of the Federal Reserve. It is the New York Fed that is the real power. The Fed Chairman and the Fed Board of Governors are merely the political arm of what amounts to a banking/money cartel.
It is very relevant to know Fed open market operations, gold and currency swaps, etc. Those are the only things that really matter. Americans should know that the Fed is bailing out foreign instiutions.
joepeeler34 3 months ago
@joepeeler34 You think audits should cover primary functions?
I thought audits covered buys/sells, profits/losses, revenue/expense, inventory?
jimmyrtle 3 months ago
@jimmyrtle Yes. loans are repayed (most of the time), but the loans are created with money created out of nothing. Who gets access to loans at almost 0% interest? Does the avg. American? It represents a theft of purchasing power and puts the American citizen on the line for private concerns.
The Fed also buys up toxic assets of private firms that are illiquid (read: nearly worthless), then puts them on the American citizen's account. It's theft!
joepeeler34 3 months ago
@joepeeler34 Yes, central banks can create money out of thin air.
Current discount rate is 0.75%, not 0%.
Who gets access? Member banks. So what?
Current discount window loans are $3 million, with an M!
No, the Fed does not buy private toxic assets, only Federally guaranteed securities.
They don't put anything on citizen's accounts, citizens don't have any claim on the Fed's balance sheet.
The Fed does turn a large profit each year, most of which goes to the US Treasury. It's a gift! A big one!
jimmyrtle 3 months ago
@jimmyrtle I didn't say that the discount window was 0%. I was referring to Fed Funds Rate.
The FFR is how the Fed manipulated rates downward. It sends a false signal that more savings exist than actually do. Real savings can not be duplicated with artificial banking procedures.
In interest rate's economic function is to coordinate production across time. It should move up and down based on the supply of available savings and the demand for credit.
joepeeler34 3 months ago
@joepeeler34 Banks don't borrow from the Fed at the Fed Funds rate.
jimmyrtle 3 months ago
@jimmyrtle The Fed can collateralize anything it wants. It bought toxic mortgage backed securities from the balance sheets of banks. So, it doesn't just by federal securities.
It's not supposed to directly purchase U.S. Treasury securities. It can get around this by announcing POMO (Permanent Open Market Operations) ahead of purchases. This creates an artificial demand for tsy's pushing down yields. Investors then front-run the Fed via POMO. They get the spread without having to do anything.
joepeeler34 3 months ago
@joepeeler34 The Fed could, theoretically buy anything they want, but, in reality, they only buy Government guaranteed debt. That would be Fannie debt, Freddie debt and US Treasuries.
jimmyrtle 3 months ago
"It's a gift!" Ha! The Fed creates money out of nothing to buy U.S. Treasuries. When the note is paid the Fed gets interest to be paid for by taxpayers with money that was originally created out of nothing. There is no free lunch. The govt. is just monetizing its debt. Americans get an inflation tax.
Who gets the new money before it has lost its purchasing to convey the increased currency supply? Those with large contracts with govt. and the financial services sector. We get inflation tax.
joepeeler34 3 months ago
@joepeeler34 Yes, it's a gift from the Fed to the Treasury.
jimmyrtle 3 months ago
@jimmyrtle It's a gift? Where did the tax revenues come from to pay off the bonds that the Fed purchased with money created out of nothing? We pay interest on money created out of nothing on debt that the Fed buys.
joepeeler34 3 months ago
@joepeeler34 Yes, it's a gift.
The Fed gave over 90% of its earnings to the Treasury.
The tax revenue to pay Fed owned bonds comes from the same place as the tax revenue to pay the bonds everybody but the Fed holds. The difference is, the Fed held bonds end up giving 90% of their interest back to the Treasury.
We pay interest on all the money the Treasury borrows.
Is that the Fed's fault or the fault of Congress? LOL!
jimmyrtle 3 months ago
Yes, banks don't borrow from the Fed through the FFR. That is the interbank lending rate. And where did the credit come from for the banks to lend at such a low rate given that the savings rate is very low. It shouldn't and wouldn't be that low absent the Fed's creation of credit money out of nothing.
The only way that the Fed can move rates lower is to artificially increased the credit money supply.
Has saved capital increased? No. It sends false signals. It's price setting.
joepeeler34 3 months ago
@joepeeler34 The savings rate is at a multi-year high.
jimmyrtle 3 months ago
The discount window rate is negative in real terms as well.
Banks profit from the artificially low short-term rates. It's harder for the central bank to move long-term rates. The spread between the two is how the banks generate much of their profits. It's has turned Walll Street into traders of debt and underwriters of govt. debt.
The beneficiaries of artificially low rates are finance and govt. It's no coincidence that banks are always agitating for an increase in the debt ceiling.
joepeeler34 3 months ago
@joepeeler34 Negative in real terms? So what?
Current discount window borrowings are $3 million.
I guess they don't see the huge profit opportunity you see.
jimmyrtle 3 months ago
You mentioned that there were numerous errors in the video. We have established that your point about the Fed having a budget in any real sense of the world isn't relevant.
Your point about the GAO doing an audit is irrelevant as well given the audit doesn't detail the things that matter. What about foriegn loans, currency swaps, forays into the gold/silver markets to manipulate the price, etc.?
So: where are the errors.
It's you who have made the errors.
joepeeler34 3 months ago
@joepeeler34 All government agencies have a budget, so the video is wrong.
The Fed is audited every year, sorry if the audit isn't to your liking. And it's not by the GAO. 2nd error.
They are accountable to Congress, that's kind of a big error. In less than 1 minute. What a joke.
jimmyrtle 3 months ago
@jimmyrtle Other govt. agencies can't create money out of nothing to bail out those private interests that compose what is the Federal Reserve system. The Federal Reserve Act created a money/banking cartel. It's not consitutional and it serves to concentrate wealth and power.
We have went over why the GAO audit is a joke. Google GAO's recommendations for more transparency at the Fed. The audit is a joke. Look up the Federal Reserve and exemptions to normal GAO audits. It's gets exemptions.
joepeeler34 3 months ago
@joepeeler34 "It's not consitutional"
It was created by Congress. It is Constitutional.
Look up the Coopers Lybrand audit.
jimmyrtle 3 months ago
@jimmyrtle "Extinguished" is just another word for repaid in finance.
They are not accountable to Congress because no one can overrule them.
You think they are accountable because the President nominates the FED Board of Governors and the Chairman. Yes, but the list that the president draws from is a creation of the FED.
And the Presidents of the Fed regional branches are chosen by the banks that compose the Federal Reserve System.
Isn't that convenient!
joepeeler34 3 months ago
@jimmyrtle So, if the Congress passes a law that says that isn't authorized by the Constitution, then it's legal because they said so. If that's true, then why ever bother amending the Constitution?
If the congress passes a law prior to the 16th Amendment imposing an income tax, is it legal? Why then would they have bothered with the 16th Amendment?
Why did the Congress bother with the prohibition amendment? Couldn't they have just passed a law?
Your argument is absurd. Try harder.
joepeeler34 3 months ago
@joepeeler34 It's authorized. By the Constitution. Read harder.
jimmyrtle 3 months ago
@jimmyrtle No, it isn't. Show me chapter and verse.
The Constitution mentioned the term dollar twice (once for a now-defunct slave clause and the other for a bail of $20), which begs the question, what was a dollar.
The dollar, which was the old Spanish milled dollar, was defined as 371 1/4 grains of fine silver. The Coinage Act of 1792 later codified what was already commonly understood.
How do you COIN paper? "Weights and Measures" is pointless for paper notes, i.e. bills of credit.
joepeeler34 3 months ago
@joepeeler34 "regulate the value thereof" They can make the dollar worth less gold, or zero gold.
So they could have fiat coins but not fiat bills? LOL!
jimmyrtle 3 months ago
@jimmyrtle They aren't accountable to congress in any real sense of the word. The Fed is accountable to no one because it can't be overruled by any other branch of govt.
The political branch of the Fed (Chairman and Fed Board of Governors) only serves to keep the political class at arm's length from the real power behind the throne, i.e. the New York Federal Reserve.
It is at the New York Fed where the cronies go to feed.
joepeeler34 3 months ago
@joepeeler34 They are accountable to Congress. Congress created them, Congress could eliminate them.
Congress chaged their mandate before and could change it again.
jimmyrtle 3 months ago
"The savings rate is at a multi-year high." That's true enough but the comparison is from savings rates over the last decade of about 3%. It's up to 6% or so.
And where is that scarce savings going? It's not going to small businesses. It's not going toward much capital investment. It's going to govt., which crowds out others. Govt. engages in present consumption spending, not capital investment. Govt. compounds the problem by subsidizing credit for consumption spending by individuals.
joepeeler34 3 months ago
@joepeeler34 The savings rate is at a multi-year high." That's true enough
LOL! Thanks for admitting your error. It's true, banks aren't lending. I wonder why?
Forced to make bad loans. Castigated for their losses. Even those who made money are bashed.
New regulations, higher capital requirements. The only sane thing to do is shrink the balance sheet, a lot.
jimmyrtle 3 months ago
Can you answer me a few questions? Where does real credit derive? Can real savings (delayed consumption) be replace by artificial banking procedures? Can the Fed and its member banks create credit out of nothing by engaging in fractional reserve banking or the Fed's magical ability to create credit out of nothing by crediting member banks' accounts?
What happens when those rates are kept artificially low for a sustained period? What happens when that pretend credit touches real capital?
joepeeler34 3 months ago
"The Fed gave 90%..."
And where did the Fed get that money? And where did the Fed get the money to buy those Treasuries to begin with?
Let me get this straight: One pseudo agency of govt. (FED) creates money out of nothing to buy debt from another agency of govt. (TSY), then the Fed collects interest on the bonds from taxpayers on money it created out of nothing. It then returns the interest to the TSY minus operating expenses of the FED with principal extinguished.
Alrighty then!!
joepeeler34 3 months ago
@joepeeler34 "And where did the Fed get that money?"
The Fed has a huge inventory (remember that word?) of bonds. Bonds pay interest.
"And where did the Fed get the money to buy those Treasuries to begin with?"
The same place it got the money to buy their MBS. From THIN AIR!!!
"It then returns the interest to the TSY minus operating expenses of the FED with principal extinguished"
All except the "principal extinguished" part.
jimmyrtle 3 months ago
@jimmyrtle Yes, bonds pay interest. And how did the FED purchase those bonds? Did it produce products that were sold in the market place? That is what those paper notes represent.
Why do we punish counterfeiters? Because they use paper note (claim checks) to claim goods out of the economy, but the put no goods in.
What's the difference between the FED created money out of nothing that benefits those who get the new money first? They didn't put additional goods in the economy.
joepeeler34 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@joepeeler34 "And how did the FED purchase those bonds?"
The FOMC purchased them during Open Market Operations.
"Did it produce products that were sold in the market place?"
No. They created money out of THIN AIR!!!
"What's the difference between the FED created money"
The Fed was authorized by Act of Congress. Counterfeiters are not.
"that benefits those who get the new money first?"
You never explained the benefit.
jimmyrtle 3 months ago
@jimmyrtle But who benefits from that money created out of thin air? Do I get by debts bought up with money created out of nothing that are then transferred to the books of the taxpayer? It's a great gig if you get it.
The FED serves the interest of the banks and govt. Govt. likes the FED because it can fund part of its operations by way of siegnoriage. It's a stealth tax. Where does that purchasing power go? It's transferred to those who get the new money FIRST before prices rise.
joepeeler34 3 months ago
I said that the savings rate is low. It is. That it is higher in comparison to abysmally low savings rates of the last decade doesn't mean they are high in a real sense. You are pointed to a slightly faster turtle and saying, "Watch him go! Ain't he a sprinter!" It's laughable.
People don't save near as much as they would when rates are pushed negative in real terms.
Negative rates mean that the yields aren't higher than the dollar debasement/price inflation rate.
joepeeler34 3 months ago
"New regulations." Yep, same old solution. The banking and health care sectors are the most regulated by bureaucrat. They have been for decades. There is no free market in either sector. Which areas are in permanent crisis?
You will have to regulate by bureaucrat when the market's regulation by fear of loss is taken away. That is what the FED and collectivized risk (FDIC) do to the banking sector. It is just that the regulation by bureau won't make the system sound in that environment.
joepeeler34 3 months ago
I think you have Stockholm Syndrome. You have fallen in love with your captors :)
joepeeler34 3 months ago
@joepeeler34
I think you have Ron Paul Syndrome, you have all these silly, and incorrect, beliefs about the Fed.
jimmyrtle 3 months ago
@jimmyrtle My understanding of economics is derived from the reading of hundreds of classical and Austrian economists in addition to countless videos and essays. You?
"It's created by Congress so it's constitutional." LOL! So were the Alien and Sedition Acts. So were the trade association agreements (cartels) during the NIRA. So was the Patriot Act. I could go on and on
The Congress can only change the Constitution by amendment. Just because it passes a law doesn't mean its constitutional.
joepeeler34 3 months ago
@joepeeler34 Congress has the power "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof"
They passed a bill, the President signed it.
Been around for 98 years. Maybe you should tell someone you've dicovered it's unconstitutional?
jimmyrtle 3 months ago
@jimmyrtle Yes, they passed a bill in clear violation of the expressly enumerated powers.
The Constitution wasn't written to list all the prohibitions placed on the federal government. If it were, it would have had to have been thousands of pages long.
It made far more sense to create a Constitution that expressly enumerated powers with all other powers denied by default.
The amendment process is difficult. So, fed. govt. relies on the federal courts to act as a rubber stamp.
joepeeler34 3 months ago
You didn't answer my question. If Congress can just pass a bill with President signing it then why did they bother with the 16th Amendment? Why didn't they just pass a tax law? Why didn't they just pass a law with alcohol prohibition? Why did they amend the Constitution?
Take legal tender laws as another example of a violation of Consitution. Knox v. Lee overturned Griswold v. Hepburn a few years before. Why? Grant installed 2 railroad lawyers on Court because railroads wanted paper notes.
joepeeler34 3 months ago
@joepeeler34 They didn't need to amend the Constitution to create the Fed.
Just like George Washington didn't need to amend it to create the 1st Central bank
jimmyrtle 3 months ago
@jimmyrtle There was great debate about that central bank. Hamilton and the Federalists (those who gave the people the Alien and Sedition Acts and run rough-shod over habeus corpus) hated the limits placed on the central government by the Constitution. They always tried to use their shock troops in the federal courts to create a shadow Constitution.
This is why the people rejected the Federalists. Jefferson killed that central bank. Jackson killed Biddle's bank 30-years later.
joepeeler34 3 months ago
@joepeeler34 Yes, great debate and then the Founders created a central bank.
You should have told George Washington that it was unconstitutional. LOL!
jimmyrtle 3 months ago
@jimmyrtle No, the Federalist party created the central bank. The Democrats who won the debate at the Constitutional Convention then ended it. LOL!
The Federalists wanted a much more nationalized government at the Convention. The Jeffersonian/Madisonian position prevailed.
You could just as easily say that some of the Founders composed the Federalist party with them passing the Alien and Sedition Acts making that law consitutional. It wasn't anymore than a central bank.
joepeeler34 3 months ago
@joepeeler34 George Washington signed the bill after a Congress full of Founders passed it.
In 1791. It lasted for 20 years.
jimmyrtle 3 months ago
No, George just didn't understand what the purpose of a central bank was. It benefits the connected few. Hamilton thought debt to be a blessing because he thought the American people to be lazy. He thought debt would make them work harder. Morris and others used the bank as a piggybank. Read through the corruption of this bank.
Hamilton once referred to a the Constitution as a "worthless fabric." That's your great champion of the Constitution? Your ignorance amuses me.
joepeeler34 3 months ago
@joepeeler34 You're smarter than President Washington and the Founders. LOL!
jimmyrtle 3 months ago
@jimmyrtle An "regulate the value thereof" merely meant to codify the rates of exchagne of various metal coins. The market could just as easily have done that. The market rate of exchange of these coins was merely codified. The exchange rates were determined by the supply/demand for the various monies.
Are you aware that private mintage was common up until the 1860's when the govt. moved to protect its money monopoly by banning competition?
joepeeler34 3 months ago
@jimmyrtle And another thing. Fiat paper notes aren't legal either.
Read through Ariticle I, Section 8 sometime. How exactly do you COIN paper notes? What relevants does the phrase "Standards of Weights and Measures" have to paper notes? It's absurd. "Weights and Measures" refers to the metal content of the precious metal coin. "Weights and measure" isn't applied to paper notes.
The Founders were hostile to paper notes (bills of credit) because of their own disastrous experience.
joepeeler34 3 months ago
@joepeeler34 The Constitution does not prohibit fiat money.
jimmyrtle 3 months ago
@jimmyrtle The Constitution doesn't give sanction to fiat money. It doesn't explitly prohibit the chewing of gum, either.
Again, the Constitution wasn't a list of all the things the central government couldn't do, nor was it a list of all the things the states couldn't do.
It was meant to empower the central government in a limited sphere. If the power was expressly given, then it was denied by default.
A Constitution is by defintion limited government. It's intended to limit.
joepeeler34 3 months ago
@joepeeler34 "It was meant to empower the central government in a limited sphere"
Yes, the Constitution gave them to power to regulate the value of money.
Including creating a Central Bank.
jimmyrtle 3 months ago
@jimmyrtle And I just explained to you what the Founders considered money. The dollar was a weight of silver. It's definition was 371 1/4 grains of fine silver. Calling a fiat paper note that isn't defined as a dollar is akin to identifying a dog as a cat.
"Regulate the value thereof" referred to the codification of the exchange value of the coins. The market set that. The govt. merely put to paper what was already understood.
Again, how do you COIN paper notes?
joepeeler34 3 months ago
@joepeeler34 Coin simply meant create.
If the Founders intended no paper money, they could have put that in the Constitution. They did not.
jimmyrtle 3 months ago
@jimmyrtle Oh, it simply means create? I see. So it was just coincidence that they didn't COIN paper notes. They COINED COINS. That is absurd. If they inteded for paper notes to be currency, it would have read print or create bills of credit or something to that effect.
It said COIN because silver and gold COINS were the money. The dollar was defined as a weight of silver.
Speaking of "weight," you still haven't answered my question about "Standards of Weights and Measures."
joepeeler34 3 months ago
@joepeeler34 Yes, it simply meant create.
The Congress had the power to create money and the power to regulate its value.
The Constitution did not require money to be gold or silver. Paper was not prohibited either.
The dollar was not defined in the Constitution.
jimmyrtle 3 months ago
@jimmyrtle Create? Yep, they were given the power to create COINS. And regulate the value thereof didn't mean that they could just willynilly decide that gold would trade at 100 times the rate of silver.
That would be like decreeing that bacon will trade at a 10:1 ratio to eggs forever more. It's absurd.
It simply meant that the govt. would just attest and codify the market exchange rates of precious metal coins.
joepeeler34 3 months ago
@jimmyrtle Yes, the term dollar wasn't defined in the Constitution. Neither were any other words for crying out loud. The Constitution is not a dictionary. The terms "liberty," 'property," and "credit" weren't defined either. They used words that were commonly understood.
The term "dollar" was defined as 371 1/4 grains of silver. Franklin chose the old Spanish milled dollar as the national currency because it was the most commonly used money at the time and most contracts were priced in it.
joepeeler34 3 months ago
@joepeeler34 "Yes, the term dollar wasn't defined in the Constitution"
Excellent! So Congress could regulate the value of a dollar to be 1 grain of silver, or zero grains.
Glad we agree that would be Constitutional.
jimmyrtle 3 months ago
@jimmyrtle And you aren't even attempting to challenge me on the Federalist party and their rejection by the American people. You aren't challending me about the Jeffersonian/Madisonian system prevailing at the Convention. You aren't challenging about the quote by Hamilton referring to the Constitution as a "worthless fabric." Other Federalist thought the same.
You still won't answer my question about the relevance of the phrase "Standards of Weights and Measures."
joepeeler34 3 months ago
@joepeeler34 The Federalists have zero to do with the topic.
The Founders established the First Bank of the US in 1791.
President Washington signed the bill.
The Democrats obviously lost the debate, because the Bank was created.
We're off a metallic standard for our money, does the National Institute of Standards and Technology
still exist?
jimmyrtle 3 months ago
@jimmyrtle No, SOME of the Founders in the Federalist parties created the first central bank. Many of those Federalists sought to undermine the clear intent of the document. Hamilton's acolyte Marshall and other Federalists in the federal court system sought to create a shadow constitution. Those or like mind have been doing it ever since.
The Democrats closed down that central bank last I checked. The Federalist only "won" because ther were in power for awhile.
joepeeler34 3 months ago
@joepeeler34 "SOME of the Founders in the Federalist parties created the first central bank."
Congress created the first Bank of the US. President Washington too.
jimmyrtle 3 months ago
@jimmyrtle Yes, and Democrats were opposed to it. Democrats then killed the unconstitutional central bank a short while later.
SOME of the Founders in the Federalist party also created the Alien and Sedition Acts. They violated habeus corpus. Are these constitutional measures
Hamilton and his crew immediately after the Constitution was created deliberately set out to get around the limits of the Constitution. Those "chiselers working underground (Jefferson)" have done the same ever since.
joepeeler34 3 months ago
@joepeeler34 Dems were opposed, so what? Dems didn't renew the charter, 20 years later, so what?
You think a Central Bank is unconstitutional, so what?
jimmyrtle 3 months ago
@jimmyrtle Opposed by who? The Dems also opposed the encroachments on habeus corpus and Alien and Sedition Acts by Federalists. If the American people thought they were following the Constittution, why did they reject them after only a few decades? They got a taste of their disregard of the Constitution.
Men like Hamilton went along with the Constitution only because it was the best they could get at the time. They just used office and the courts to reinterpret (disregard) Constitution later.
joepeeler34 3 months ago
A central bank is unconstitutional. Show me the power.
It says Congress shall COIN money and "Standards of Weights and Measures." Weights is only "irrelevant" to paper. It is crucial and germaine to real money, i.e. commodity precious metal money.
The Constitution doesn't give the power to Congress to hand this power to what amounts to a govt.-created money/banking cartel.
If you want it to be constitutional, amend the Constitution. Don't pretend it's being followed. It isn't.
joepeeler34 3 months ago
@joepeeler34 "A central bank is unconstitutional"
President George Washington disagrees with you.
"The Constitution doesn't give the power to Congress to hand this power to what amounts to a govt.-created money/banking cartel"
Apparently it does.
"If you want it to be constitutional, amend the Constitution"
Excellent idea. If you want gold instead of paper, start amending.
jimmyrtle 3 months ago
@jimmyrtle Mr. Washington's party disagrees with you. Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, and the American people who threw the Federalists out disagree with you.
I guess the Alien and Sedition Acts were constitutional, too. To be consistent, you must hold that position because your Federalist party did that, too.
Where in the Consitution does it say that a central bank is to be created? Where does it say that a state-sanctioned banking cartel can be given that power without amendment?
joepeeler34 3 months ago
@joepeeler34 I don't know why you continue whining about the fact that George Washington and Congress in 1791 created a Central bank.
Sorry if that hurts your feelings, but that's what happened.
jimmyrtle 3 months ago
@jimmyrtle I don't know why you won't answer my question about the Federalist party creating the Alien and Sedition Acts. Was that law consitutional? Afterall, the Federalist party created that law to go after constitutionalists in the Democrat party. Would you like to revive those laws? They must be constitutional, right?
Hamilton was the one behind that bank. He had no regard for the Constitution. He and Marshall viewed is as an obstacle. That's why he called it a "worthless fabric."
joepeeler34 3 months ago
@jimmyrtle I don't have to amend it. That would be those who won't intrinsically worthless paper to be a currency. It's not money by the way. A money is a storehouse of value. A paper currency fails that test. It is currency.
I don't have to repeal paper because the laws of economics and physics will do it for me.
Historical fact: average life span of a fiat paper currency is 27-years.
This debt-based paper currency system is collapsing before your eyes. You're too brainwashed to see it
joepeeler34 3 months ago
@jimmyrtle Also, you have unwittingly, implicitly proved my point. You are incorrectly claiming that the Congress's intent of "to regulate the value thereof" is a license to manipulate the exchange rates of silver to gold (or copper for that matter). What other "value" could you be referring to other than commodity money.
Paper currency couldn't be issued without a link to commodity money, however distant in its past, because no exchange rates for paper could exist without that connection
joepeeler34 3 months ago
@joepeeler34
Yes, "regulate the value of" means they can change the value.
The value was not fixed in the Constitution.
jimmyrtle 3 months ago
@jimmyrtle Nope. It would be absurd to "change the value." It doesn't say change the value. It would be akin to trying to change the value of a washing machine by decree. It's absurd.
Money is a product ( paper notes are only currency). Money came into existence out of a need for a media of exchange. Many things were tried. Gold and silver arose after thousands of years of trial and error
They traded at goods at market prices. Money wasn't a creation of the state. It was an emergent order.
joepeeler34 3 months ago
@joepeeler34 "It would be absurd to "change the value." It doesn't say change the value"
Then they should have fixed the value. They did not.
jimmyrtle 3 months ago
@jimmyrtle That's price fixing. It's as absurd as fixing the price of a car to a bicycle independent of supply and demand.
As I have explained, it is in reference to a codification of market exchange rates. The govt. will codify and attest to the exchange rate of various coins in the market.
Gold and silver are just tradable commodities. They have exchange values with other goods. The govt. didn't create the pricing system anymore than it invented money. They are emergent orders.
joepeeler34 3 months ago
@joepeeler34 Price fixing? You mean like fixing a dollar to a weight of silver?
jimmyrtle 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jimmyrtle LOL! You are hopelessly confuse. A dollar was just a DEFINITION of a weight of silver.
A price is a relationship between a medium of exchange and what it is exchanged. There is not price fixing when you DEFINE a dollar as a weight of precious metal. The price of money is free to fluctuate and exchange at different prices relative to goods.
It's like saying a an ounce is fixed to 1/16 of a pound. No, it is just 1/16th of it be definition. The ounce measures as does a money.
joepeeler34 3 months ago
The reason that gold and silver (to a lesser extent copper) became monies was due to the fact that they had all the properties that one would want in a money. It wasn't a product of central planning by govt. It was an emergent order.
1) They are fungible
2)Divisible without losing value
3)Finite but enough existed to serve as media of exchange
4) Malleable but durable so easily fashionable into coins
5) High unit value per measure of weight
6) Valued for non-monetary uses
joepeeler34 3 months ago
Where in the document does it give explicit approval for a central bank? All powers not expressly given to the central government are reserved to the people and the states.
Also, why did the Founders specifically prohibit the individual states from emitting bills of credit and making any thing but gold and silver money in the Constitution?
Am I to believe that the evils of paper currency were good for central govt. and bad for the states that created it? HA!
joepeeler34 3 months ago
@joepeeler34 As far as I can tell, they can regulate the value of money any way they choose.
Via Central Bank or not.
The Founders didn't want states to issue paper money, but they were okay with the Federal government issuing it.
Yes, good for central, bad for states.
jimmyrtle 3 months ago
@jimmyrtle You don't understand what "regulate the value thereof means." It doesn't mean price setting. It means to codify and attest to the weights and measure of the coins and their exchange rates on the market.
You don't understand. You haven't read enough. I've been reading on this for the last 10-years.
LOL!. If they thought paper was a good thing, then why was precious metal money used? Why did they refer to coins and weights and measures? Why Coinage Act of 1792 to codify it?
joepeeler34 3 months ago
@joepeeler34 Regulate the value means they can change the value if they'd like. And they did.
Precious netals were the standard. Now they aren't.
Coinage Act wasn't in the Constitution
jimmyrtle 3 months ago
@jimmyrtle No, they can't change the exchange rate if they like. That's price fixing. Silver and gold are commodities that have exchange rates set by market transactions. It's like trying to set the price of bacon to eggs at a fixed ration. It creates shortages and imbalances.
Coinage Act was created by Founders. Coinage Act merely codified what was already understood.
Just as the Constitution merely codified already existent common/natural law and natural rights. It didn't invent them.
joepeeler34 3 months ago
@joepeeler34 "No, they can't change the exchange rate if they like"
They can and they have.
jimmyrtle 3 months ago
@jimmyrtle How so? It's true that they foolishly tried to set silver to gold at an artificial peg of 16:1 ratio many years later. Yes, that's true. And that policy was foolish.
That is not what the Founders were referring to however. They were referring to the exchange rates of coins circulating in the market. A silver dollar (proper) would exchange at varying rates depending on the precious metal content of other coins. It was just a reference to the codification of those exchange rates.
joepeeler34 3 months ago
@jimmyrtle And you have still not satisfactorily answered my question about COINing money and what was meant by the phrase "Standards of Weights and Measures." You claim that this isn't relevant? Oh, really now?
Were they just bored in the summer of 1787? Did they throw it in for a lark? What possible meaning could it have?
How is "weights and measures" relevant to paper?
If the Coinage Act of 1792 wasn't a codification of what was already understood, why wasn't Constitution amended?
joepeeler34 3 months ago
@joepeeler34 Weights and measures apply to more than money. You realize that, right?
jimmyrtle 3 months ago
@jimmyrtle Yes, weights can apply to various things of intrinsic value. Salt and tobacco used to be monies (that's where the idiom "not worth his salt" comes from). It would make sense to refer to "weights" when referring to them.
It only makes sense to refer to "weights" when referrencing commodity money.
That is what the Founders were doing. A dollar is defined as a weight of silver.
The weight of an intrinsically worthless paper note (or digital currency) is nonsensical.
joepeeler34 3 months ago
@joepeeler34 Weights also applies to trade.
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
You think they had to keep the same dollar/metal ratio, forever?
jimmyrtle 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jimmyrtle But they weren't talking about trade. That clause was addressing money. It wasn't addressing the weight of your girlfriend.
Yes, I am glad you looked that up. It's a reference to the codification and attestation of what a dollar is defined as. It will trade in the market relative to other metal coins that were in existence. The dollar proper was one of many coins in the market at the time. Private mintage was common at the time.
A dollar isn't a ratio. It's a DEFINITION.
joepeeler34 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Do you think an ounce is a DEFINITION or an arbitrary ratio to a pound? You are asking the equivalent of an ounce being equal to 1/2 a pound. That misses the concept entirely.
The Spanish milled dollar was the most common medium of exchange at the time. That coin had 371 1/4 grains of silver in it. The dollar is an identification and definition of a weight of silver. Other coins would trade against it depending on the metal and amount of gold/silver in that coin. They just codified that.
joepeeler34 3 months ago
@jimmyrtle The Democrats were the Constitutionalists that won at the Convention. The Federalists were rejected by the people when they saw what they were doing once in power. That's why there were defunct a short time later. I imagine you think that the Alien and Sedition Act and arogation of habeus corpus by the Federalists was constitutional, too. If you are to be consistent, you must claim that as well.
joepeeler34 3 months ago
No words were defined in the constitution. They used langauge that was commonly understood. Do they put definitions of words in to the test of law today? Negatory.
What people like you try to do is keep the same word but change the meaning of it through deliberate misusage.
You still haven't answered by COIN question. Why didn't they say emit bills of credit or print notes if that's what they intended?
What about Weights and Measures? Is the weight of paper relevant? No.
joepeeler34 3 months ago
We don't use constitutional specie anymore. That is because the government broke its own laws.
Can you explain why Knox v. Lee overturned Griswold V. Hepburn a few years later? Did the text of the Constitution change? No. The Grant administration owed the railroad lobby. Grant put two railroads lobbyists on the bench and oila! legal tender was "constitutional." What a joke!
Weights and Measures--answer the question. Measure of metal in coins or measure of wood in paper note. LOL!
joepeeler34 3 months ago
@joepeeler34 Weight doesn't matter, Congress has the power to regulate the value of money.
jimmyrtle 3 months ago
You still haven't answered my question about "Standards of Weights and Measures." It was referencing the defintion of currnecies, which were defined and exchanged as weights of metal.
By the way, all fiat paper notes, however distant in their past, have a relationship to a commodity money. If you introduced a intrinsically worthless paper note into a system that had no money previously, how would people know what price they would exchange for goods at? Commodity money has no such problem.
joepeeler34 3 months ago
What inventory does the FED have? It doesn't experience profits/losses.
Those buys/sells aren't covered for the most part.
We only found out about the Fed's activities in 2009 due to an FOIA by Bloomberg/Fox. We learned that numerous large corporations got credit from the FED with credit money created out of thin air at effectively negative rates.
We learned that the Fed bailout out European banks to the tune of $5 trillion.
It's a transfer of purchasing power in the end.
joepeeler34 3 months ago
@joepeeler34 What inventory? LOL! Billions in gold, trillions in bonds. You don't know very much, do you?
They buy bonds, bonds can fluctuate in value. You don't know very much, do you?
They publish their balance sheet every week. You can easily discover what they buy and sell.
When the Fed's short term loans are repaid, they are not inflationary.
jimmyrtle 3 months ago
@jimmyrtle Then why did we not find out in the GAO audit of all those loans at real negative interest rates to companies like Caterpillare, Harley Davidson, McDonalds, G.E., and on and on until after the FOIA lawsuit?
Why didn't the GAO audit detail inform us of over $5 trillion in loans to foreign institutions?
The GAO audit is a joke. The GAO even said that there needs to be more transparentscy of the Fed. The Fed gets exceptions to GAO that no other govt. bureaucracy gets. Why?
joepeeler34 3 months ago
Again, watch that whole video and you'll better understand.
joepeeler34 3 months ago
@joepeeler34 The video is full of errors. It's clear I know more than the makers of that silly video.
jimmyrtle 3 months ago
The point that the Fed has no real budget is part of the problem. Money (real money, i.e. commodity money) represents the product of wealth creation, i.e. goods and services in the economy.
Whoever gets the Fed's new funny money first gets it before prices have risen to convey the increased money supply. The rest of us get AFTER prices have risen. Wages prices rise a year or so after other prices. It's a loss of real wages.
Who gets the new money first? Financial services sector.
joepeeler34 3 months ago
@joepeeler34 Their budget has nothing to do with anything.
So, the Fed buys a bond yielding 2% from JPM. In return, JPM gets cash which yields 0%.
What's the benefit to JPM?
jimmyrtle 3 months ago
@jimmyrtle It has no budget by any definition that I understand. It can create as much digital/accounting money as it wants out of thin air.
The Fed can buy Tsy's with money created out of nothing. When the notes are payed, the Fed deducts the interest (on money created out of nothing) and returns it to the Tsy minus operating expense of the Fed.
It doesn't need a budget because it can just credit bank accounts. See? The cost is payed for by inflation.
You call that a budget?
joepeeler34 3 months ago
@joepeeler34 budget: a plan for the coordination of resources and expenditures, the amount of money that is available for, required for, or assigned to a particular purpose
Yes, they can create money out of thin air, but that's not the money they spend to fund their budget.
No, the cost is not paid for by inflation.
jimmyrtle 3 months ago
@jimmyrtle Yes, the cost of the Fed monetizing govt. debt and banker debt is payed for with inflation.
Member banks must also pay fees. The Fed can also purchase debt with money it creates out of nothing. The bond is then payed for by money taken from the taxpayer. The Fed returns the money to the Treasury minus operation expenses of the Fed.
A budget is irrelevant when talking about the Fed because it can create all the currency it wants to bail out whoever it likes.
joepeeler34 3 months ago
@joepeeler34 Yes, a budget is irrelevant, so why'd the clowns in the video mention one?
jimmyrtle 3 months ago
Now how do we get around the greed of the other congressmen?
InKa4484 6 months ago
I'm voting for him for sure.
Paintballerfromhell1 8 months ago
The good thing about this guy, is he doesnt only say what is wrong but he expresses practical solutions. Get him into the whitehouse.
bacelines 8 months ago 2
Regardless of me disagreeing with this man on minor issues gun control, abortion, gay marriage, immigration (the first 3 of which should be left up to individual states IMO and immigration is only a problem because of our current economic system) the only major issue the only one that really needs to be handled by the Federal Government is tearing down the Federal Reserve. I believe that to be the biggest and most important issue.
YaHuWaHservant 9 months ago
I don't know. I think Dennis Kucinich has a better chance against GOP candidates so far. I use to be a dedicated Republican but now I just don't care about party anymore. The scales have been removed from my eyes, so to speak.
I don't watch fox news, msnbc or cnn. I get my news online from various sources. Reuters is actually doing a better job covering US news while airing from their BBC network in Britain which is embarrassing to admit. Can we save this country without another civil war?
nathanieldurkin1 9 months ago
fuck the new deal and FDR...i applaud kucinich for targeting hte federal reserve but fdr and the new deals were socialist programs.
fuck socialism. long live the free market!
baezalejandro 9 months ago
wants to end the fed but still believes in re-distribution of wealth. Not a good idea to spurn economic growth.
LetsTalkPolitix 9 months ago
DENNIS KUCINICH!
MOXWELLDIAMOND 10 months ago
I love Dennis
tylrjsph 10 months ago
And some foolish people thought that Bush would be indicted under Obama administration.
kkbose 10 months ago
I lean far more on the right than Mr. Kucinich as a libertarian, but once I found out he's against The Fed and against chem trails, I will have no problem voting for him against any GOP candidate.
MissSovietBones 10 months ago
elect this man
damagedone56 11 months ago
Its probably too late , they have been stealing most of Americas wealth and controlling the political , banking , corporate , educational and media system for 100 years.
Even if the FED is abolished they will still have the loot to mess around with the economy. They are worth 100s of times the GDP of the USA.
What ever happens don't look to the UN , world bank or IMF for a solution.
hablerz 1 year ago
@hablerz we have an emergency. Ron Paul should oversee the fed. he is next in line in his committee which oversees monetary policy. scumbag boener is trying to stop him.
mizzoulibertarian 1 year ago
@hablerz You are 100% right...and based on what I'm still seeing..it's not better....I feel like Dennis K and Ron P are the voices in the wilderness..but nobody is listening. It's sad..I love my country but America just isn't America anymore. Corporate takeovers of FOOD, Theiving Bankers, Corporate violations of water rights..yes it's happening here in the United States....Corporations violating our Earth with fracking..I could go on and on..it's sooooo fucked up.
davehutchinson67 11 months ago
I don't agree with all of his opinions but he hit this one out of the park
jsh78mang 1 year ago 3
The zionists would just get to him eventually or assassinate him. The situation is already hopeless. Just assault your retarded government and start all over (although the chances are small, as martial law would be imposed under the patriot act and the average citizen would have no chance against the most advanced, well funded and ruthless military of all history.)
charlie123abc360 1 year ago
@Sublety00 he did vote for the audit...
midgetman433 1 year ago
Even though this guy's eyes are open, I'm sure there is a sum of money that can make him close his mouth. Then again, unfortunatly, not enough people watch House hearings in spite of everything. The only reason we are all in this mess is because of our own stupidity, greed, and submission.
notunderarock 1 year ago 4
@notunderarock : there have been many attempts to buy his silence, and attempts on his life - one of which was officially confirmed to him by the FBI - he was also hospitalised after a severe physical beating. Thes things have all happened because his mouth can't be closed. I agree with everything else you said, by the way.
MaxTallon 1 year ago 3
Unemployment is the only stimulous that's working in 2010. Still in need of teir 5. Republicans are inhumane.
mallory287 1 year ago
awesome
labeebahniqab29 1 year ago
At first, they are private bank nothing to do with Federal.
United States of Rockfeller & Rothchild
brainstorm310 1 year ago
@brainstorm310 - the federal reserve banking system is a quasi-governmental agency; The Federal Reserve is not controlled by private banks, but by a publicly appointed board of governors. Many confuse "owning" and "controlling". Private banks, while they may own shares in the individual Federal Reserve Banks, do not have any control over the Federal Reserve System, much like how a private individual may own shares of a large corporation, but has little say in the day to day operations.
sfiorare 1 year ago
@sfiorare
by bought governers who don't do shit
pokeyugi13 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pokeyugi13 - that's right, they don't do shit, like you do
sfiorare 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pokeyugi13 - that right, they "don't do shit", you do
sfiorare 1 year ago
So i liked kucinich once.... but i mean hes a dingus. look at him. he supports the new deal then bashes the fed. Just end the fed and u'll be all good. fucking eccentric opportunist.
gingowitch 1 year ago
मैं हूँ 78 साल पुराना है. देखा है और जीवन में बहुत सुना है. क्या कभी दास अपने स्वामी को मजदूरी दे? गरीब आदमी अमीर प्रसव के लिए अमीर आदमी वेतन और परिश्रम? पैसे नीचे गोबर का ढेर, प्रवाह नहीं करो.
Imphalim 1 year ago
let's re-define money as rocks...that'll do them in...can't print rocks and if you did it would certainly be spotted as a forgery right away.
uturniaphobic 2 years ago
@OaGuardian
Not enough gold to put us back on the gold standard.
patbarkley 2 years ago
Kucinich is a moron.
The Fed was created by Congress. That kinda makes it Federal.
The Fed turned over to the US Treasury
over $46 billion of its $52 billion in earnings.
Stupid thing to do for a private bank, but makes sense for an institution that is part of the government.
patbarkley 2 years ago
you didnt get what he meant by federal..haha..he meant taht the federal reserve is no more federal than the federal express is on paper...
azn1980 2 years ago