# Money changers and freedom



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

Did not want t side track the subprime loan thread.
This video is long but it is worth the watch. 

[YOUTUBE]watch?v=rtiOEpOnqtI[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

Rothschilds own half of the worlds wealth. They are wealthier then many countries.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Thanks for posting this. Many people are unaware of this. Congress is authorized to coin interest free money, why do we pay interest to use "our" money? 

You see, the Fed was necessary to run deficits. We get what we deserve when we allow others to run things without oversight.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> Thanks for posting this. Many people are unaware of this. Congress is authorized to coin interest free money, *why do we pay interest to use "our" money? *
> 
> You see, the Fed was necessary to run deficits. We get what we deserve when we allow others to run things without oversight.


It's not yours if you didn't earn it.
The money is ''interest free''/
*Loans* are not


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's not yours if you didn't earn it.
> The money is ''interest free''/
> *Loans* are not


You are being foolish. What money does government have and what are they expected to do with it? Get with the program. 

Comment on the topic, please, stop stalking my posts... lol

Only have to ask one question from you on this, when I cash my paycheck at the bank, does the money that they hand me a loan? ...does it have interest on it? I know you have a habit of changing things around but those are straightforward questions, can you offer a "Yes" or a "No" to them?


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

actually, it is more like the banks create a line of credit for themselves out of thin air. They only need a small percentage of actual collateral and the rest of their wealth is just fantasy money written on paper. They lend you money that they do not have and you pay them back with real money plus interest. that is the scam.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> *You are being foolish*. What money does government have and what are they expected to do with it? Get with the program.
> 
> *Comment on the topic*, please, stop stalking my posts... lol
> 
> Only have to ask one question from you on this, when I cash my paycheck at the bank, does the money that they hand me a loan? ...does it have interest on it? I know *you have a habit* of changing things around but those are straightforward questions, can you offer a "Yes" or a "No" to them?


I don't know what makes you think I'd "stalk" your posts, and I did comment on the topic.

You're the one trying to make it about me

Your questions have already been answered (as usual)


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I don't know what makes you think I'd "stalk" your posts, and I did comment on the topic.
> 
> You're the one trying to make it about me
> 
> Your questions have already been answered (as usual)


No, you incorrectly implied that it was not "my" money when it is mine, yours and everyone's money.

No, again. You come onto this thread, you do not make a reasonable reply, I am quite certain that you did not listen to all three hours of the video and most probably did not even start the video. [I am one hour and six minutes into it and it explains it quite aptly which in turn, invalidates your presumption noted above]

And here comes your famous "Already been answered" diatribe. Show me where. You cannot because the specific questions that were posed ARE NOT ANSWERED BY YOU NOR ANYONE ELSE. What does that make you?

&#924;&#927;&#923;&#937;&#925; &#923;&#913;&#914;&#917; indeed... That's what ignorant Americans are telling the foreign bankers to do with OUR MONEY.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> No, you incorrectly implied that it was not "my" money when* it is mine, yours and everyone's money*.
> 
> No, again. You come onto this thread, *you do not make a reasonable reply*, I am quite certain that you did not listen to all three hours of the video and most probably did not even start the video. [I am one hour and six minutes into it and it explains it quite aptly which in turn, invalidates your presumption noted above]
> 
> ...


One more time, it's not *your* money unless you earned it ,and you aren't paying any interest on the money you earn

I'm not repeating everything for you.
Scroll back and figure it out
Your question was answered before you asked.



> What does that make you?


I'm not playing this game with you again


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> One more time, it's not *your* money unless you earned it ,and you aren't paying any interest on the money you earn
> 
> I'm not repeating everything for you.
> Scroll back and figure it out
> ...


OK, I guess that I will have to explain it for you. The money that I earn has inflation factored into it. This means that every day it has a little less buying power. The inflation, for the most part goes to the bankers that are running the Federal Reserve. We pay money to use their Federal Reserve Notes. Just out of curiosity, who receives the interest on the Federal Deficit? Do we pay the interest into the Treasury or to some other entity, can you name it? Oh, that's right, this too has been answered. How foolish of me... [lol]

So, with the above statement, you see that the SPECIFIC question that I posed has not been answered and you are just trying to divert the question with the suggestion that it has. You continue to operate in what I would call a dishonest fashion.

This is only a game if it is your intention to trick others into thinking that your replies carry weight.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Shine said:


> Just out of curiosity, who receives the interest on the Federal Deficit?


I think you mean the national debt. But the largest recipient of interest paid on our national debt is the baby boomer generation's retirement fund, since the baby boomers' FICA fund (excess SS & Medicare premiums) is the largest investor to the USA.

The federal government owes the baby boomer generation $2.7 trillion, and has to pay interest on all that debt.

You'd think that my generation would be deserving of a lot more respect from that investment. LOL


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Nevada said:


> I think you mean the national debt. But the largest recipient of interest paid on our national debt is the baby boomer generation's retirement fund, since the baby boomers' FICA fund (excess SS & Medicare premiums) is the largest investor to the USA.
> 
> The federal government owes the baby boomer generation $2.7 trillion, and has to pay interest on all that debt.
> 
> You'd think that my generation would be deserving of a lot more respect from that investment. LOL


Yes, I had a senior moment. Thanks for the correction. 

I miss your meaning on the "interest" being paid to the Fed by the Retirement Fund. Are you saying that the money that is made off of the investments in the name of that retirement fund is being sent to service the debt? And to clear things up, are we not borrowing money to pay only the current Interest on that debt?

If I am not mistaken, are not the unfunded liabilities somewhere in the neighborhood of 130 trillion dollars?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Shine said:


> Yes, I had a senior moment. Thanks for the correction.
> 
> I miss your meaning on the "interest" being paid to the Fed by the Retirement Fund. Are you saying that the money that is made off of the investments in the name of that retirement fund is being sent to service the debt? And to clear things up, are we not borrowing money to pay only the current Interest on that debt?
> 
> If I am not mistaken, are not the unfunded liabilities somewhere in the neighborhood of 130 trillion dollars?


No. Our retirement fund was loaned to the government, so it's part of the national debt that has to be serviced.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Nevada said:


> No. Our retirement fund was loaned to the government, so it's part of the national debt that has to be serviced.


:smack


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Shine said:


> :smack


It's the system that Ronald Reagan left us with. It's not like anyone asked me for my opinion.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Shine said:


> Thanks for posting this. Many people are unaware of this.
> 
> * Congress is authorized to coin interest free money, why do we pay interest to use "our" money? *
> 
> You see, the Fed was necessary to run deficits. We get what we deserve when we allow others to run things without oversight.



Not too hard to see if you open your eyes, is it?
Where or from whom does the federal government obtain this money?
Or better yet, since printed money must be backed by tangible assets, what exactly are those assets?







Bearfootfarm said:


> It's not yours if you didn't earn it.
> The money is ''interest free''/
> *Loans* are not


That's actually a good point!
I need to remember that in my next corresspondence with the IRS..........:heh:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Not too hard to see if you open your eyes, is it?
> Where or from whom does the federal government obtain this money?
> Or better yet, since printed money must be backed by tangible assets, what exactly are those assets?
> 
> ...


The IRS isn't charging you "interest" unless you owe them past debts.
Taxes are another topic altogether


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The IRS isn't charging you "interest" unless you owe them past debts.
> Taxes are another topic altogether


Once more, a non-nonsensical reply divorced from the actual posted topic.

Do we pay interest on the use of Federal Reserve Notes or not?

Yes, indeed, the imposition of Income Tax upon a man's time and effort being classified with a net worth of ZERO and, ergo, his paycheck being 100% pure profit is another topic all on its own. 

I would assume that you are aware of the Supreme Court decision where it was said "income" is ONLY profit, correct? If not, I can quote the case for your perusal...

Thank you for bringing this to the attention of all that are reading this thread.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> Once more, a non-nonsensical reply divorced from the actual posted topic.
> 
> *Do we pay interest* on the use of Federal Reserve Notes or not?
> 
> ...


*You* don't pay interest on them 




> Once more, a non-nonsensical reply divorced from the actual posted topic.


Don't read and respond to my posts then
I don't care either way


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The IRS isn't charging you "interest" unless you owe them past debts.
> Taxes are another topic altogether


That's correct, but the opposite of my point.
It isn't the IRS's money they collect, it's mine.
And taxes ARE the very topic, if you bother to answer the question, "What assets does the gov't use for collateral on it's printed money?".
I agree with you when you say, "It's not yours if you didn't earn it".
That weekly paycheck belongs to one that earns it, not someone else, right?

Secondly, since the IRS is collecting that money in advance all year long without paying interest to the "lender".
Even if you contend they are collecting a legitimate debt, (in the eyes of the gov't, I owe them for my existence) the amount refunded to those annually SHOULD be paid an interest amount as any other lender in our system, or do you make an exception to that rule for the people that support this nation?



Bearfootfarm said:


> It's not yours if you didn't earn it.
> The money is ''interest free''/
> *Loans* are not


Simply put, the U.S. government is collecting money, interest free and loaning it back to the creditors it was taken from, and charging interest for borrowing back their own earnings.
You wouldn't defend something as outrageous as that, would you?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> You wouldn't defend something as outrageous as that, would you?


I'm not "defending" anything.

I simply pointed out *the ones complaining* aren't paying interest to use *their* money


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> *You* don't pay interest on them
> 
> 
> 
> ...


OK, sigh... How does our Government get the money that it uses? Here, don't worry, I'll answer that for you, a good portion of the money that the government uses is from the taxes that are collected. We good here? The portion of money that the government spends that is in excess of those taxes is borrowed from the Federal Reserve Bank. 

Does the Federal Reserve provide money to the Government FREE FROM ANY INTEREST?

Interest Expense Fiscal Year 2016 
December 86,649,956,614.54 
November 23,107,464,608.89 
October 16,789,489,434.74 
Fiscal Year Total $126,546,910,658.17

https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm

OK, tell me, who pays that interest and what is that interest for? Of course, you can fall back to your safe zone, not answer the question and just simply reply that "It's already been answered" and then go about your day as if you upheld your end of this discussion when you have not...


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

farmrbrown said:


> Simply put, the U.S. government is collecting money, interest free and loaning it back to the creditors it was taken from, and charging interest for borrowing back their own earnings.
> You wouldn't defend something as outrageous as that, would you?


Interesting. 

Makes me think back to my prior comment that they look at us as livestock or crops on a farm. The common people produce and they harvest. They only give back enough seed to crop the next harvest. 

We are nothing more then animals to them.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> OK, *sigh.*.. How does our Government get the money that it uses? Here, don't worry, I'll answer that for you, a good portion of the money that the government uses is from the taxes that are collected. We good here? The portion of money that the government spends that is in excess of those taxes is* borrowed* from the Federal Reserve Bank.
> 
> Does the Federal Reserve provide money to the Government FREE FROM ANY INTEREST?


Save your theatrics.
I already said interest is paid on *loans*

You always repeat yourself endlessly just to get answers already given.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Save your theatrics.
> I already said interest is paid on *loans*
> 
> You always repeat yourself endlessly just to get answers already given.


You just cannot bring yourself to state that the Fed *LOANS* the "money" to our government can you? Ergo, we[collective] have to pay *INTEREST* on that loan.

Why all the beating around the bush?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Shine said:


> You just cannot bring yourself to state that the Fed *LOANS* the "money" to our government can you? Ergo, we[collective] have to pay *INTEREST* on that loan.
> 
> Why all the beating around the bush?


That's what QE is all about. The Fed buys treasury notes to prop the country up.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Shine*
> _Thanks for posting this. Many people are unaware of this. Congress is authorized to coin interest free money, *why do we pay interest to use "our" money? *
> 
> ...


OK, from your first post in this thread. I said that we paid interest on OUR money.

You replied that the money that we earn is interest free. That is not true. All money in circulation has interest factored in. People just cannot see it.

The money that we are paid with is from a resource that is a loan so the money that we earn is NOT interest free.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> You just cannot bring yourself to state that the Fed *LOANS* the "money" to our government can you? Ergo, we[collective] have to pay INTEREST *on that loan.*
> 
> Why all the beating around the bush?


*on that loan.*

Keyword: *LOAN*

Isn't that what I said in my *first post*?

You always run in circles to get back where you started

I'm done with you


----------



## 1948CaseVAI (May 12, 2014)

Shine said:


> No, you incorrectly implied that it was not "my" money when it is mine, yours and everyone's money.
> 
> No, again. You come onto this thread, you do not make a reasonable reply, I am quite certain that you did not listen to all three hours of the video and most probably did not even start the video. [I am one hour and six minutes into it and it explains it quite aptly which in turn, invalidates your presumption noted above]
> 
> ...


Just not the coldest beer in the fridge, are you...


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Shine said:


> The money that we are paid with is from a resource that is a loan so the money that we earn is NOT interest free.


Where did the Fed get the money to loan?

Since the US government backs the Fed, any money the Fed loans the government is conjured-up from the integrity of the US government. So whose money is it? Does it even exist? Is anyone out anything if it never gets paid back?

It's a strange financial world we live in. It's esoteric in a lot of ways.


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

Did anyone watch the video? Post your thoughts and impressions if so. This is a good video.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm not "defending" anything.
> 
> I simply pointed out *the ones complaining* aren't paying interest to use *their* money


Well of course not, no one charges themselves interest to use money they already have.
That wasn't the complaint was in the first place.

It was the fact that neither the Fed nor the gov't, doesn't PAY any interest to the ones that contribute trillions of dollars annually to keep us all afloat.
Although as was mentioned, when the Fed's policy encourage national inflation, that is a hidden tax or interest that we all pay on our earnings.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> *on that loan.*
> 
> Keyword: *LOAN*
> 
> ...


You are done because you have been called out on an incorrect statement and cannot backpedal fast enough. No circles but you cry some kind of Circle foul, it's there in black and white. I copied your post for you to see. lol


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

1948CaseVAI said:


> Just not the coldest beer in the fridge, are you...


In some cases, yes I am, in others no I am not. You speak quite a lot of ___ [fill in the blank] without backing up your opinion. Or is that what float's your boat?

What you got eatin' at'cha boy? Where's your dog in this fight?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Well of course not, no one charges themselves interest to use money they already have.
> *That wasn't the complaint* was in the first place.
> 
> It was the fact that neither the Fed nor the gov't, doesn't PAY any interest to the ones that contribute trillions of dollars annually to keep us all afloat.
> Although as was mentioned, when the Fed's policy encourage national inflation, that is a hidden tax or interest that we all pay on our earnings.


No, that's not true at all

All the complaints were about "paying interest for our own money"

Y'all carry on with your fantasy


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> Where did the Fed get the money to loan?


Originally?
You can look it up in the history of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, but it may take you a while to find it, they only devote a few lines to the subject..........:roll eyes:

It was a mixture of capital roughly split 3 ways between the banks joining it of their private deposits (we the people), commercial holdings (more we the people) and what seemed to be described as a government backed line of credit (we the people again).

The ante to get into the game was $4 million each.


Start looking on page 40......
https://www.bostonfed.org/about/pubs/begin.pdf




Nevada said:


> Since the US government backs the Fed, any money the Fed loans the government is conjured-up from the integrity of the US government. So whose money is it? Does it even exist? Is anyone out anything if it never gets paid back?
> 
> It's a strange financial world we live in. It's esoteric in a lot of ways.



You said a mouthful there.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

I am almost two hours into it and it is quite the adventure. It aligns fairly much with how I have come to see it, it's a rich mans game and they get us to play along, and we do. Bankers are not in that business to help humanity, I would like to see a real chart regarding those that are altruistic... Very good so far.


ETA: I've seen this explained in a number of different ways but this wraps a lot of the single items that I've reviewed together in one place.

ETA: The second hour starts by explaining the Aldrich Plan, you want to verify that what is being said in the video is true, this seems to be the most apt place to research. It is also readily apparent that this is in fact what is happening today, the culmination of the effort to strip the wealth from all Americans, if you have eyes, it is easy to see.

ETA: A most telling quote by Thomas Edison:
Thomas Edison, the cut-throat businessman and inventor, summed it up neatly in a New York Times article published on December 6th, 1921._&#8220;If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good, makes the bill good, also. The difference between the bond and the bill is the bond lets money brokers collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20%, whereas the currency pays nobody but those who contribute directly in some useful way. It is absurd to say that our country can issue $30 million in bonds and not $30 million in currency. Both are promises to pay, but one promise fattens the usurers and the other helps the people.&#8221;

ETA: Congressman Louis T. McFadden:
_
&#8220;It was not accidental. It was a carefully contrived occurrence.&#8230;The international bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair here so that they might emerge as rulers of us all.&#8221; (Congressman Louis McFadden, chairman of the House Banking Committee referring to the Great Depression _On The Federal Reserve Corporation_, p. 95.)

ETA: Milton Friedman:
*"The Federal Reserve definitely caused the Great depression by contracting the amount of currency in circulation by one-third from 1929 to 1933."
Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize winning economist

*ETA: Curtis Roosevelt:

The depression was the calculated 'shearing' of the public by the World Money powers, triggered by the planned sudden shortage of supply of call money in the New York money market....The One World Government leaders and their ever close bankers have now acquired full control of the money and credit machinery of the U.S. via the creation of the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank. 

Curtis Dall _Franklin Roosevelt, My Exploited Father-in-Law_, 1968.
ETA Carroll Quigley:
The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world.

ETA: *As one prominent Brazilian politician, Luis Ignacio Silva, put it:

"Without being radical or overly bold, I will tell you that the Third World War has already started - a silent war, not for that reason any the less sinister. This war is tearing down Brazil, Latin America and practically all the Third World. Instead of soldiers dying there are children, instead of millions of wounded there are millions of unemployed; instead of destruction of bridges there is the tearing down of factories, schools, hospitals, and entire economies . . . It is a war by the United States against the Latin American continent and the Third World. It is a war over the foreign debt, one which has as its main weapon interest, a weapon more deadly than the atom bomb, more shattering than a laser beam . ."[SIZE=-2]1[/SIZE]*


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No, that's not true at all
> 
> All the complaints were about "paying interest for our own money"
> 
> Y'all carry on with your fantasy


Words, just words. Explain your point or - hey - take a break.


----------



## J.T.M. (Mar 2, 2008)

Shine said:


> OK, sigh... How does our Government get the money that it uses? Here, don't worry, I'll answer that for you, a good portion of the money that the government uses is from the taxes that are collected. We good here? The portion of money that the government spends that is in excess of those taxes is borrowed from the Federal Reserve Bank.
> 
> Does the Federal Reserve provide money to the Government FREE FROM ANY INTEREST?"
> .
> ...


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Funny...WWI is explained, the impetus is clear. WWII is clear also. WWIII is on the horizon and it falls right in line with the entire premise of the video. I would recommend that everyone, with whatever bias that you might have, watch the video.

Then decide.

Thanks for finding this City Bound.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Well, I made it through all three and a half hours of the video, the gentleman did a superb job of drawing it all together. It would appear that all wars have indeed been bankers wars, the 3 drepressions in the 20s and 30s was in fact caused by the Fed and he shows the proof of that in black and white, what we are going through now is the exact same thing that happened in all of the previous depressions. He explains it in a layman's terms so I can understand it. The banks are the central attackers of the sovereignty of the people. The people must be kept under the thumb of debt or they will escape and regain their sovereignty. 

ETA: Milton Friedman
"I know of no severe depression, in any country or any time, that was not accompanied by a sharp decline in the stock of money, and equally of no sharp decline in the stock of money that was not accompanied by a severe depression."

The people must stand or the end will be brought to us each and every one.

For those cannot view the video I have built a Summary which includes the suggested way out of this problem and a almost instant return to a stable financial state.

This is exactly why God hates Usury and warned against it.

*&#8220;This power becomes particularly irresistible when exercised by those who, because they hold and control money, are able also to govern credit and determine its allotment, for that reason supplying, so to speak, the lifeblood to the entire economic body, and grasping, as it were, in their hands the very soul of production, so that no one dare breathe against their will.&#8221;* (Pius XI, Encyclical _Quadragesimo Anno_, May 15, 1931.)

I have just been given a look at something that gives me a new view of Catholic Popes of the past...
http://www.michaeljournal.org/plenty52.htm


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Sounds like the usual bowl of _sour grapes_.

Personally, I'm not rich, but I have only _myself_ to blame. Not the Rothschilds, the Fed, or anybody else.

I made financial, career and family choices, that put me _exactly_, where I am at today. I went to high school, where some friends are way more successful, than me, today. One is a self-made millionaire.

All I have to do, is open my eyes and look around. There are plenty of people - literally since day one, who made great and awesome financial lives for themselves and others, using the exact same "system", that seems to keep others down. Most of them started with little or nothing, too.

Their names are not Rothchild, Rockefeller, or even Trump.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Well, that's good for you. What about the rest of those middle class families that are no longer middle class families? Are they lazy bums that don't deserve to have a good paying job? Did you watch the video or are you just chiming in with your general good fortune? You realize that this is affecting the younger generation MUCH more that your generation. Those that got the College Loans would not be in so much trouble if there was a good paying job in their chosen field waiting for them once they completed their schooling. Nah, let's just let them crash the economy again so they can be the true rulers of the world.

Yeah, sour grapes... You're willing to do nothing then, right?

In my opinion, if you didn't watch the video then you have no legitimate reason to comment with authority, did you watch the video?


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Shine said:


> Well, that's good for you.(1) *What about the rest of those middle class families that are no longer middle class families?* Are they lazy bums that don't deserve to have a good paying job? Did you watch the video *(2)or are you just chiming in with your general good fortune? *You realize that this is affecting the younger generation MUCH more that your generation. Those that got the College Loans would not be in so much trouble if there was a good paying job in their chosen field waiting for them once they completed their schooling.* (3)Nah, let's just let them crash the economy again so they can be the true rulers of the world.
> *
> Yeah, sour grapes... You're willing to do nothing then, right?
> 
> In my opinion, if you didn't watch the video then you have no legitimate reason to comment with authority, did you watch the video?


(1) they can get a job, driving a truck for a living - just like I do. 

(2)Did I mention that I drive a truck for a living? The job is long and hard, but the pay is fairly good. I am not rich.

(3) let's look as the big picture, if possible. 

First off, no way do I need to waste 3.5 hours on that video, but I allotted myself 10 minutes, but had to tap out at 4:53, when the announcer stated

" the Fed exists solely for their own profit and nothing else" (paraphrasing)

Huh? 

After the horrendous economic crash of 2008, the Fed certainly helped out their "banking buddies" - big time, which eventually helped out many others, but guess what else, they did?
.
They also made _trillion$ of credit_, available to banks - at low interest, for mortgages, car loans and to make business loans available for those, with enough drive and ambition to walk in the door and ask for it.

I witnessed, this miracle myself in 10', driving my truck daily by a building, somebody put up a sign that said "body shop". Now - 6 years later, that same business has nicer sign, a tow truck, the building next door and a dozen+ crashed expensive cars gathering outside, waiting to be repaired, all the time.

I guess I could gone to body shop school and set up shop across town, but I just kept driving by, in my companies truck. That was a choice I made, for many different reasons. It was not the Fed's fault.

I know times were/are tough, but some rise out of it and some don't. 

Why is that? Because of the Federal reserve? Our economy problems are caused by politicians and greedy selfish Americans, not the Fed, IMO.

Honestly, I don't believe I can topple the Federal Reserve anyway and I'm not necessarily sure, things will be any better afterwards. Maybe you are. 

What I'm going to do about it, is work my butt off to the best of my abilities. I want to start a business someday. maybe i will.

I will either make it, or I won't. The Fed or the Rothschilds, have nothing to do with my success or failure.

I am responsible for it.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

...and what happens when there is no more goods to truck from one place to another? You career field is one of the more resilient fields so you are fairly much not affected. What of the millions of IT people that are way under paid because of the offshoring of the programming, helpdesk and computer centers to other countries. What of the manufacturing jobs? Now, what got me laid off was all the programmers and other high level IT people started losing their jobs but were a great pick for other support roles that paid half of what they were used to. What happens when the transportation business is swamped by new truck drivers who used to have other jobs? Will you then say hmmmm... something is wrong here.

You didn't watch the video which is the entire point of the OP. Well, in my opinion, that's your loss, for today you missed an opportunity to learn something.

Be well...


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Shine said:


> ...and what happens when there is no more goods to truck from one place to another? You career field is one of the more resilient fields so you are fairly much not affected. What of the millions of IT people that are way under paid because of the offshoring of the programming, helpdesk and computer centers to other countries. What of the manufacturing jobs? Now, what got me laid off was all the programmers and other high level IT people started losing their jobs but were a great pick for other support roles that paid half of what they were used to. What happens when the transportation business is swamped by new truck drivers who used to have other jobs? Will you then say hmmmm... something is wrong here.
> 
> You didn't watch the video which is the entire point of the OP. Well, in my opinion, that's your loss, for today you missed an opportunity to learn something.
> 
> Be well...


I was in the IT field for 15 years, so I think I know where you are coming from. I lost my job (not economically related) and discovered I was now too old and too overpaid, for the Industry, which is why I now drive a truck, a job that pays well, only because not enough people want to do it. If they did, I would be probably making be making minimum wage, also.

Even if the economy survives and flourishes, they are talking of driver less trucks, in the near future, so I might be in the same boat again. I'll have to figure out plan "l" (or is it plan "m") of whatever I'm going to do with my life next. 

FWIW, another part of the video that cause me to bail, was blaming the Fed, for our debt, when I looked, that most every country on earth, has debt also, some huge to GDP.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt

Is our debt massive? For sure, but we've had a lot of problems over the years, including great depression, couple of world wars, Vietnam, Cold War, 9/11 and the 2008 crash, where our $14 Trillion economy, went straight into the dumper, in a matter of months, putting 2.6 million more Americans, out of work.

We hate them, but the Fed indeed bailed _everyone_ out - but not without a huge price (of debt). They have been _doing what they are doing_, for 100 years, of which probably half, were some of the most prosperous years, in American history. there was always a price to pay. We financed the moon landings with borrowed money.

I just don't see what we will actually gain, by making them the _bad guys_.

I might go back and watch the rest of the video. I try to keep an opened mind.


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

Shine said:


> Well, I made it through all three and a half hours of the video, the gentleman did a superb job of drawing it all together.
> {QUOTE=}
> 
> It is well worth the effort to watch it.


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

plowjockey said:


> We hate them, but the Fed indeed bailed _everyone_ out - *but not without a huge price (of debt*). .


That is exactly the point. That is their business. They want people and countries indebted to them. They also use their system of lending and debt to acquire hard assets like land, businesses, jewels, and gold through fleecing the market. When they control the hard assets as well as the line of credit to acquire those assets then they make even more money and have even more control. They also use the debt of nations to manipulate those nations. If the king owes you money, then you own the king.

It is loansharking, but worse.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

City Bound said:


> That is exactly the point. That is their business. They want people and countries indebted to them. They also use their system of lending and debt to acquire hard assets like land, businesses, jewels, and gold through fleecing the market. When they control the hard assets as well as the line of credit to acquire those assets then they make even more money and have even more control. They also use the debt of nations to manipulate those nations. If the king owes you money, then you own the king.
> 
> It is loansharking, but worse.


Certainly the bank investors wanted to make money (what is new?)and I did go to the part, where the Bank of England, allegedly created "funny money" because their investors could not come enough gold to cover the loans.

Maybe it just the way it goes, since it seemed to happen a lot. Our own _Savings and Loan_ debacle, was a prime example.

Wars were pretty abundant throughput history and always cost a lot of money, that had to come from somewhere, not taxpayers who were usually already broke.

Whose fault was it on how we "financed" our own Revolutionary War?



> It turns out that as the war waged on, the confidence in the Continental dollar started dropping like a rock because they were so numerous and backed by nothing. After all, it is thought that in 1775 there was only $12 million in specie in the whole 13 colonies and none of it was in Congressâs hands. Since Congress printed $12 million in Continental dollars just getting the presses going and the ink flowing, you could see why a currency crisis was in the works.* In all, during the Revolutionary War, Congress printed almost $242 million[4] in face value Continental currency. The true specie amount was about $46 million*, as shown in the above chart.


http://allthingsliberty.com/2015/02/how-was-the-revolutionary-war-paid-for/


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Well, what if I told your that he backs up his claim regarding the great depression being caused intentionally by the Fed? He tracks the amount of money in circulation, shows with historical documents, government documents where the money stock was pulled from circulation and then everything exploded. Those behind the scenes swooped in and made killing after killing enriching themselves to the Nth degree. What of that if you will?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

plowjockey said:


> Certainly the bank investors wanted to make money (what is new?)and I did go to the part, where the Bank of England, allegedly created "funny money" because their investors could not come enough gold to cover the loans.


While most countries have a stash of gold to back a portion of their currency, I doubt that we'll ever see a purely gold standard currency ever again. The truth is that there are some very good reasons for having "fiat" currency. Gold backed currency doesn't have the utility value that fiat currencies have.

To illustrate that, let's say that a developer buys a large parcel of vacant land. The developer subdivides the parcel into 100 lots, then installs roads, sidewalks and utilities. He then has the development appraised at $20K/lot, or $2 million. The developer wants to build some homes on some of the lots so he takes the $2 million appraisal to a bank. The banker loans the developer 80% of the value of his existing lots, or $1.6 million.

Where did the $1.6 million come from? When the developer starts building the homes he'll be cutting checks for materials & labor, and someone will be cashing those checks. That means the money HAS TO be there.

With a gold standard additional dollars can only be created if the country acquires more gold, or reevaluates the gold they already have. In this case the dollars were created based on the existence of $2 million in assets. That's reasonable.

Every currency in the world has gone off the gold standard. I don't see them going back to it -- ever.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

To Nevada:
Yes, and a wonderful demonstration regarding the proper usage of fiat money is the island of Guernsey in France. They have been using Fiat money for over 200 years and the way that they manage it has been good for all of the people that live there. Take a look at it.

http://www.jupiter.gg/about-guernsey/


----------



## ||Downhome|| (Jan 12, 2009)

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfEaUCm5etw[/ame]


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Nevada said:


> While most countries have a stash of gold to back a portion of their currency, I doubt that we'll ever see a purely gold standard currency ever again. The truth is that there are some very good reasons for having "fiat" currency. Gold backed currency doesn't have the utility value that fiat currencies have.
> 
> To illustrate that, let's say that a developer buys a large parcel of vacant land. The developer subdivides the parcel into 100 lots, then installs roads, sidewalks and utilities. He then has the development appraised at $20K/lot, or $2 million. The developer wants to build some homes on some of the lots so he takes the $2 million appraisal to a bank. The banker loans the developer 80% of the value of his existing lots, or $1.6 million.
> 
> ...


If they started the bank of England, with less gold, than what they claimed to have, then there really was not much of a "gold standard" back then either.

Our own country was started with fake money.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Well, if you had have watched the video in the first post, you would know what is missing from the video that you have posted. Uncle Sam is not the mover and shaker in the US economy, the Fed is [a cabal of international bankers]. The video that you posted hides this from the explanation so as to make believe that they are not "moving" and "shaking".


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

The gold standard will not come back. Gold is not esteemed as much as it use to be by common people.

Going back to a gold standard only favors those who are hoarding gold now like china. Anyway, they will just start there old tricks again where they loan out more money then they have gold.


----------



## ||Downhome|| (Jan 12, 2009)

Shine said:


> Well, if you had have watched the video in the first post, you would know what is missing from the video that you have posted. Uncle Sam is not the mover and shaker in the US economy, the Fed is [a cabal of international bankers]. The video that you posted hides this from the explanation so as to make believe that they are not "moving" and "shaking".


I wanted to keep it simple and short for certain people...

there is a far better one if I can Find it.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

I'll watch what you find DH. But with all of the verification that is in the video, I get what has been and is now and will be done in the future if we allow it. It really did a good job of tying the whole shebang together, if you have not watched in in it's entirety, I highly recommend it. ...an eye opener. I was aware of the bits and pieces but this gives it to us from start to present.


----------



## ||Downhome|| (Jan 12, 2009)

Found it, I'll give yours a watch when I can watch in one go.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFDe5kUUyT0[/ame]


----------



## Sumatra (Dec 5, 2013)

City Bound said:


> Did anyone watch the video? Post your thoughts and impressions if so. This is a good video.


Agreed. I watched part of it, and it's full of interesting facts, but I'm afraid I don't have the full 3 and a half hours to devote to it ...Mainly since the general gist on money changers and those that exist today is pretty much old news. That kind of information has been around for years. I can't believe people are still arguing about it even now?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

No... not arguing, there are many that are blissfully happy with the system as it is, they think that there is a high degree of honesty within our "government" and "banks" - the impetus is to educate as many as possible. You see, I genuinely believe that as a whole, the people of this great country would not operate as such and if a groundswell can be generated these processes might come to an end. Sunshine is the best disinfectant....


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Good video DH, I liked the way the processes were dramatized, in combination with the first video this is a useful means to educate the masses. The first one providing the verification of the actual happenings and your post condensing it into a version that almost anyone can understand.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Shine said:


> No... not arguing, there are many that are blissfully happy with the system as it is, they think that there is a high degree of honesty within our "government" and "banks" - the impetus is to educate as many as possible. You see, I genuinely believe that as a whole, the people of this great country would not operate as such and if a groundswell can be generated these processes might come to an end. Sunshine is the best disinfectant....


I guess I'm "blissfully"happy", because i see no alternative and really, none of the naysayers, have ever really presented one.

Like it or not, credit has always made the world go round, meaning people who don't have the money - which is nearly everybody, borrowing from those few who do, which were initially, the very wealthy.

Did they (do they) take advantage of the situation? Who wouldn't? If we know someone who is desperate to sell something, do we not offer them a low-ball price? Or if we own an in demand rental, jack up the prices?

I'm mostly behind what the Fed does - even in their imperfection, because I see first hand the results. 

After the 08' crash, what bank in their right mind, would loan a penny, for an automobile, Home, or business loan? That might sound just like smart business sense, but the reality is, that without auto workers making cars, workers building and selling homes, and practically every business in America operating on credit, we would have been screwed. 

The Fed did not loan/give real money to those banks, just said it would "cover" those much needed loans, against loss. It worked, as we once again have an economy, that's at least functioning pretty good.

If their actions had not improved things - or, they did nothing, I don't see where it would have really made much difference. We would have all just been starving 6 years ago.

Ideal solution? Not hardly, but what's the alternative?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

You know... many on here call me a conspiracy nut. Things like this would seem to clear the table a bit. I will say this: If this is an honest description regarding how those people are enriching themselves [and I believe it is] then the possibility that the other happenings that do not seem to have happened the way that the "government" is explaining them away are also becoming more clear.

And I will repeat myself: I don't believe that the *people* of this country would knowingly operate in this fashion, I believe that the whole system would be scrapped in a heartbeat should all become known about the ACTUAL processes that are being used.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

PlowJockey:

Towards the end of the first video a solution was offered. We cannot go into the Gold Backed currency because of the fact that we no longer own the lion's share of the Gold. Other countries are now in possession of more gold than we have so that is out of the realm of possibilities. 

Their solution was as this, quite simple as a suggestion but it would change all that this world is, we would not be where we are currently stuck at...

1. Pay off the debt with debt free US Notes. [Congress has the Constitutional Authority to do this]

2. Abolish Fractional Reserve Banking. As the debt is paid off, the reserve requirements of all banks and financial institutions would be raised proportionally at the same time.

3. Repeal the Federal Reserve Act

4. Withdraw the U.S. from the International Monetary Fund, the Bank of International Settlements, and the World Bank

With these actions completed, it was theorized that the National Debt could be met within the first year and that we could return to being a country that operates within our means.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

plowjockey said:


> I'm mostly behind what the Fed does - even in their imperfection, because I see first hand the results.


Sure. I like the basic premise of the Fed and what they're supposed to accomplish. What I object to is a banking cartel being in charge of throttling the economy and regulating the banking industry in secret.

Let's not kid ourselves; bankers are in this business for profit. Would we let oil companies regulate the oil business with no transparency or accountability? Of course not, because they would run away with the store. We would expect that from oil companies, so why wouldn't we expect the same from bankers?

The idea that bankers understand the banking industry better than anyone else is good, but we have to be able to see what they're up to.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Shine said:


> You know... many on here call me a conspiracy nut. Things like this would seem to clear the table a bit. I will say this: If this is an honest description regarding how those people are enriching themselves [and I believe it is] then the possibility that the other happenings that do not seem to have happened the way that the "government" is explaining them away are also becoming more clear.
> 
> And I will repeat myself: I don't believe that the *people* of this country would knowingly operate in this fashion, I believe that the whole system would be scrapped in a heartbeat should all become known about the ACTUAL processes that are being used.


I will agree with you that many operate in cahoots. I see it everywhere, not just with the Fed.

Look how automobile dealer organizations, got their state Governments to block, letting Tesla (or any other auto manufacturer) sell cars direct to the public.

I guess one could look at it like this.

Those already wealthy snobs, that started the Bank of England, could have simply just sat on their gold and lived nice easy lives. But they decided to risk it (for great reward) by loaning it to others, who may - or may not be able to pay it back.

Personally I don't think it's too much for them to want a big payback, for their risk.

I would.

Again, throw out the rich greedy snobs. What's the alternative? Will we benefit from it, or will it just be another group of rich greedy snobs, running the show?


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Sure. I like the basic premise of the Fed and what they're supposed to accomplish. What I object to is a banking cartel being in charge of throttling the economy and regulating the banking industry in secret.
> 
> Let's not kid ourselves; bankers are in this business for profit. *Would we let oil companies regulate the oil business with no transparency or accountability? *Of course not, because they would run away with the store. We would expect that from oil companies, so why wouldn't we expect the same from bankers?
> 
> The idea that bankers understand the banking industry better than anyone else is good, but we have to be able to see what they're up to.


Wouldn't the economy need "throttling"? It always has in the past. I thought that was one of the main points of the Fed, even if they don't always get it 100% right.

Global monetary policy is not a simple task.

You were in the oil business. You don't think - that to some extent, the oil industry actually operates as a cartel?



> Buried in the latest government analysis on lifting the crude-oil export ban is a piece of data that shows why ending the limits will be a heavy lift: It would cut refiners&#8217; profits by $22 billion a year.
> 
> 
> The report shows that dropping the ban, which dates to the 1970s Arab oil embargo, could lower gasoline prices for drivers and boost domestic oil drillers. But refiners &#8212; one of the nation&#8217;s most powerful industries &#8212; would be the losers.


http://fuelfix.com/blog/2015/09/03/...t-ban-is-loosened-eia-report-says/#35264101=0

We have not allowed any new refineries, to be built in the U.S. since 1976.

Everybody loves to blame the EPA and "tree huggers", but i have always believed that oil Companies want it this way too.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

plowjockey said:


> Those already wealthy snobs, that started the Bank of England, could have simply just sat on their gold and lived nice easy lives. But they decided to risk it (for great reward) by loaning it to others, who may - or may not be able to pay it back.
> 
> Personally I don't think it's too much for them to want a big payback, for their risk.
> 
> I would.


That's the way banks were run 50 years ago, but not today. Banks used to be run by wealthy investors who were risking their own money. But all of the so-called 'partner banks' have been sold to corporations. They no longer risk personal capital, they borrow the money wholesale from commercial banks, who borrow it from the Fed.

Banking has become a game of buying a commodity (i.e. - money) wholesale and selling it retail. Personal risk is minimal, because everyone at the bank is an employee. If the CEO of a bank runs the bank into the ground, he has a golden parachute written into his contract for several hundred million. None of his personal wealth was ever at risk at the bank.

Getting a license to operate a bank is basically permission to borrow money wholesale, and money never goes out of style. The Fed licenses banks, so they decide who plays and who doesn't. You play ball with the Fed or they pull your license.

Your idea of banking dates back to the 50s & 60s. Those days are gone.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

plowjockey said:


> Wouldn't the economy need "throttling"? It always has in the past. I thought that was one of the main points of the Fed, even if they don't always get it 100% right.
> 
> Global monetary policy is not a simple task.


But is the Fed's throttling strategy designed to produce a well-regulated economy, or is their strategy designed to generate banking profits? The truth is that we don't really know because of the Fed's secrecy.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

plowjockey said:


> Again, throw out the rich greedy snobs. What's the alternative? Will we benefit from it, or will it just be another group of rich greedy snobs, running the show?


I see your point. Using Credit, and fractional reserve banking that there is a huge amount of money to be made. The alternate point being, why does not our country do the banking for the people of this country? They have the Constitutional Authority to do so. Why does our government let others profit off of us rather than turning the profit back into the re-creation of this great nation?

We either have to stop others from taking our wealth or we have to use the same process that the banks are currently using to further enrich THIS country.

I do not think that this idea has ever been unreasonable. I do sincerely want to see this problem turned around. Take greed out of our processes.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Nevada said:


> But is the Fed's throttling strategy designed to produce a well-regulated economy, or is their strategy designed to generate banking profits? The truth is that we don't really know because of the Fed's secrecy.


If it's all in in secrecy, how do you know that there are huge banking profits being made?

just curious.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Nevada said:


> That's the way banks were run 50 years ago, but not today. Banks used to be run by wealthy investors who were risking their own money. But all of the so-called 'partner banks' have been sold to corporations. They no longer risk personal capital, they borrow the money wholesale from commercial banks, who borrow it from the Fed.
> 
> Banking has become a game of buying a commodity (i.e. - money) wholesale and selling it retail. Personal risk is minimal, because everyone at the bank is an employee. If the CEO of a bank runs the bank into the ground, he has a golden parachute written into his contract for several hundred million. None of his personal wealth was ever at risk at the bank.
> 
> ...


We need a whole lot of money - real or imagined, to run an economy. 

Where does it come from?


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Shine said:


> PlowJockey:
> 
> Towards the end of the first video a solution was offered. We cannot go into the Gold Backed currency because of the fact that we no longer own the lion's share of the Gold. Other countries are now in possession of more gold than we have so that is out of the realm of possibilities.
> 
> ...


(1) We pay off the national debt, by printing $18 trillion in cash? Are we to expect China and every other country, to accept these bills?

No offense, but that sounds like something a country in _Latin America_, might do to attempt to cure their money woes.

(2) Where does the money to lend, come from, to run our economy? Who assumes the risk, of loaning into a shaky economy, that is literally printing money.?

(5) Where do we get $18 trillion in one year, to cover the printed notes?

I just don't see where this adds up.

Maybe you can elaborate.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

plowjockey said:


> We need a whole lot of money - real or imagined, to run an economy.
> 
> Where does it come from?


The fed issues money, usually based on appraised assets. I covered that in post 51 in this thread.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

plowjockey said:


> If it's all in in secrecy, how do you know that there are huge banking profits being made?
> 
> just curious.


We know how much banks are making, since they're public companies who issue stock. They have to release financial disclosures periodically to satisfy SEC requirements. Banks have been doing very well lately.

What we don't know is how much the Fed is helping banks make that money. It also calls bank balance sheets into question, since the Fed can loan banks hundreds of billions off the books.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

plowjockey said:


> We pay off the national debt, by printing $18 trillion in cash? Are we to expect China and every other country, to accept these bills?


They could do it, but the dollar's value would drop 50% overnight. Exchange rates would react to that, so we would owe them twice as many dollars.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Nevada said:


> The fed issues money, usually based on appraised assets. I covered that in post 51 in this thread.


What difference does it make, since it's no longer "real money" anyway? 

You said so yourself, that since banks are now just Corporations, they are no longer using the hard assets, to back loans, as they did 50 years ago.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Nevada said:


> They could do it, but the dollar's value would drop 50% overnight. Exchange rates would react to that, so we would owe them twice as many dollars.



We could print more.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

plowjockey said:


> What difference does it make, since it's no longer "real money" anyway?
> 
> You said so yourself, that since banks are now just Corporations, they are no longer using the hard assets, to back loans, as they did 50 years ago.


Hard assets are still used to collateralize loans. The difference is that they aren't using a banking executive's personal funds to make loans. Today the money is borrowed from commercial banks & the Fed as if it were a wholesale commodity.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

plowjockey said:


> (1) We pay off the national debt, by printing $18 trillion in cash? Are we to expect China and every other country, to accept these bills?
> 
> No offense, but that sounds like something a country in _Latin America_, might do to attempt to cure their money woes.
> 
> ...


Personally, I cannot answer this, I did indicate that this was the suggestion in the video and they did not go deeply into the nuts and bolts regarding how it would happen. I could provide a guess but it would be just that and I might turn out looking foolish - :spinsmiley:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Shine said:


> Personally, I cannot answer this, I did indicate that this was the suggestion in the video and they did not go deeply into the nuts and bolts regarding how it would happen. I could provide a guess but it would be just that and I might turn out looking foolish - :spinsmiley:


After this recession resolves, perhaps in 5 years or so, we'll see a period of high inflation. The inflation will be 8% to 10% and last 6 or 8 years. That will dwarf our current debt.

Dwarfing the debt won't pay it off, but it will seem smaller and more manageable. That's how we've handled debt in the past.


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

Nevada said:


> After this recession resolves, perhaps in 5 years or so, we'll see a period of high inflation. The inflation will be 8% to 10% and last 6 or 8 years. That will dwarf our current debt.
> 
> Dwarfing the debt won't pay it off, but it will seem smaller and more manageable. That's how we've handled debt in the past.


 did this happen in the 80's?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

City Bound said:


> did this happen in the 80's?


Late 70s & early 80s. It happened during all of the Carter admin and the first half of the Reagan admin. But it's not as bad as it sounds. People got great raises, their investments went up, and people seemed to have disposable income to indulge themselves. That period became known as "the decade of the collectibles" because people had money to blow on things like antiques.


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

Nevada said:


> Late 70s & early 80s. It happened during all of the Carter admin and the first half of the Reagan admin. But it's not as bad as it sounds. People got great raises, their investments went up, and people seemed to have disposable income to indulge themselves. That period became known as "the decade of the collectibles" because people had money to blow on things like antiques.


I was a kid then. I recall hobby shops being filled with customers. I remember the mall boom. remember the collectables like bubble gum cards. that came towards the middle of the 80's. 

But the 90's came and we had a recession. 

I personally think we might have another little boom like we did in the 80's but not until the 2020's and that is only if we can resolve all these wars we are in that are sucking up our money.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

City Bound said:


> I personally think we might have another little boom like we did in the 80's but not until the 2020's and that is only if we can resolve all these wars we are in that are sucking up our money.


It would appear that "wars" are needful things for those that want to make a quick buck...


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

Shine said:


> It would appear that "wars" are needful things for those that want to make a quick buck...


yeah, but when Vietnam ended the economy picked up again and things were pretty good, even if it was just a false security. I guess this is just how the bankers control the flock. After they make money with debt during the times of war then they flood the market with easy money again. Then inflation robs people of their savings and many people are happy to spend, borrow, and go further into debt.

Constant war would lead to bankruptcy. Times of peace are needed to let prosperity and success crop again so that it can be mowed down by the global bnkers at harvest time. 

Thinking about it now I wonder if all the money flowing in the economy during "good times" was just loaned money. I wonder if the prosperity in the job market was just the redistribution of money loaned to industry. If the companies get a loan then they have money to pay workers who then in turn have the money to buy a car and then the car company has that money to spend. The company spends most of the income and only puts part of it on the loan. the interest builds until it eventually over shadows and consumes nearly all or all of the income. 

Could be that the initial credit is spread about among the people until it diminishes and vanishes. Transferring debt rom one person to the next an then back again.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Shine said:


> It would appear that "wars" are needful things for those that want to make a quick buck...


Yes, and it's unfortunate. I always thought that if we had money to blow on a war that the same money could be used to pay doctors & nurses and build schools & hospitals. Doing that would stimulate the economy as much as war, and at least we would have something to show for it.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

However... when you look at the number and times that the US government has involved itself in conflicts you will see that there are very few moments of "peace" while there has been a number of periods of prosperity. The video appears to back this premise up -> put a whole lot of dishes on simmer, then increase the heat on this one or that one when more profit is needed.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Shine said:


> However... when you look at the number and times that the US government has involved itself in conflicts you will see that there are very few moments of "peace" while there has been a number of periods of prosperity. The video appears to back this premise up -> put a whole lot of dishes on simmer, then increase the heat on this one or that one when more profit is needed.


It's not that war is a good thing. Nobody really thinks that. It's more about who wants war. The thing is that military contractors need war to thrive, and they are powerful and politically connected people. You could go so far as to say that defense contractors own most of congress. When they want a war, they get a war.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Late 70s & early 80s. It happened during all of the Carter admin and the first half of the Reagan admin. But it's not as bad as it sounds. People got great raises, their investments went up, and people seemed to have disposable income to indulge themselves. That period became known as "the decade of the collectibles" because people had money to blow on things like antiques.


Whatever happened 30 years ago, might as well be 130 years, IMO.

The world is totally different today. Rising prices is no guarantee of rising wages, since the Unions are gone and people work part time, and outsourcing to China is the norm

The middle class is gone and no one has any money to invest. If people don't get an inheritance, they "indulge" themselves with iphones, Dish TV and Xbox.

Personally, I'll pass on high inflation.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

plowjockey said:


> Whatever happened 30 years ago, might as well be 130 years, IMO.
> 
> The world is totally different today. Rising prices is no guarantee of rising wages, since the Unions are gone and people work part time, and outsourcing to China is the norm
> 
> ...


I think you're going to be in for a pleasant surprise. Before long the labor force will be a seller's market. After the baby boomers are secure in their retirement there won't be enough workers to go around. Workers will command higher salaries, and it won't be the result of political pressure.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Nevada said:


> I think you're going to be in for a pleasant surprise. Before long the labor force will be a seller's market. After the baby boomers are secure in their retirement there won't be enough workers to go around. Workers will command higher salaries, and it won't be the result of political pressure.


I certainly hope that you are correct. If the government is able to make the pension payments fund the general stash then all will be well. If not, Baby Boomers will still be in the labor force.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Nevada said:


> I think you're going to be in for a pleasant surprise. Before long the labor force will be a seller's market. After the baby boomers are secure in their retirement there won't be enough workers to go around. Workers will command higher salaries, and it won't be the result of political pressure.


You might be right and I'm ready for a pleasant surprise. Most have been the opposite.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

plowjockey said:


> Personally, I'll pass on high inflation.


It's not like we have a choice.


----------

