Cagematch: Ron Paul's two views - wacky or sane?

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: event8horizon
some of us might have come to the conclusion that the fed is "independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.?

so we need to go to jeckyll island to see who was behind the design of the law.
from wiki-

On the evening of November 22, 1910, Sen. Aldrich and A.P. Andrews (Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Department), Paul Warburg (a naturalized German representing Kuhn, Loeb & Co.), Frank A. Vanderlip (president of the National City Bank of New York), Henry P. Davison (senior partner of J. P. Morgan Company), Charles D. Norton (president of the Morgan-dominated First National Bank of New York), and Benjamin Strong (representing J. P. Morgan), left Hoboken, New Jersey on a train in view of a group of confused reporters, who were wondering why these bankers, representing about one-sixth of the world's wealth, were gathering at this particular place and time and leaving together.

from money masters-
Question: If private banks create over 90% of the US money supply, then are they not a greater threat to our democracy than the Fed itself?

Answer: Of course. The Fed was simply a smoke-screen designed to hide the stark reality that behind the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, signed by an unwitting President Wilson (who later deeply regretted that act) was a monumental power grab by the largest bankers who designed the Act at their secret meeting at Jekyll Island, Georgia (detailed in the video/DVD). The Federal Reserve Act allowed the Fed to establish a reserve requirement of between only 8% and 14% (presently set at 10% for most types of loans). That made it lawful for banks to loan far more than they had in deposits ? to practice fractional reserve banking. The Fed centralized, nationalized and standardized this fraud on the people, and restricted its practice to banks only. In fact, the roughly 2% of the US money supply the Fed creates actually is owned by the government (as it should be), but this tiny fraction obscures the fact that it is the base for the creation of the other 98% created by private banks as loans. Thus, simply having a Federal Reserve or similar national Central Bank, in itself, is not a bad thing (it can be a good thing) ? but allowing private banks to practice fractional reserve banking (pursuant to the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 or any other such law) is the real problem, which is impoverishing all Americans and now all peoples worldwide, except the bankers. For clarity, it should be renamed the Fractional Reserve Banking Act. The exponential concentration of wealth, in the US and abroad, is due almost exclusively to fractional reserve banking by privately owned banks such as Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, J.P. Morgan Chase, etc. The Fed is simply part of the mechanism screening this grave injustice from public knowledge and scrutiny.

now we need to look into the agenda's of the people involved in the jeckyl island conference.

Too bad fractional reserve banking was in existence far longer than 1913. Also, people blame it for "runs". However, in any situation where you are depending on deposits for funding a "run" can occur, so the very thought that a 100% reserve can absolutely prevent runs is ridiculous.

I am surprised you cannot see the manipulative language within that post and the whole book of Jekyl Island. Hyperbole, extremist statements, polarization...etc, are all tools of people who want to manipulate you.

One thing I find humorous about all of these posts is that they make it seem like nobody has any vested interest in these loans, except the banks. Who then, funds the loans? Where does the bank get the money to lend the money? Does it come from nowhere?

Of course, they try to obfuscate the truth, to mislead and confuse. However, the simple explanation is that the money comes from other investors, whether it be debt or equity investors within the bank, international or domestic.

 

[Mavtek3100]

Yes from the way I understand it the Government uses foreign interests, the Fed through securities, and various bonds etc. to essentially have a credit card with no limit.

LK would you disagree or agree with that statement?

 

[event8horizon]

with fractional reserve banking, it would be nice for the interest on the loans to be based on the 10% the bank actually has. from a bankers point of view....i get it very clearly. $$$$$$$$$

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Yes from the way I understand it the Government uses foreign interests, the Fed through securities, and various bonds etc. to essentially have a credit card with no limit.

LK would you disagree or agree with that statement?

There is a limit to credit, in as much as people are willing to buy it. The more you put out there the more it will cost. Eventually the cost of raising debt is more expensive than the benefit you get out of it. That's when you stop raising debt.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: event8horizon
with fractional reserve banking, it would be nice for the interest on the loans to be based on the 10% the bank actually has. from a bankers point of view....i get it very clearly. $$$$$$$$$

No, you do not get it "very clearly".

The interest on the loans has no bearing on what % the bank has.

Lets think about this logically.

Assets = Liability + Equity


Now, a "fractional reserve" dictates that the bank keep certain types of capital in reserve to cover any demands on the deposits. Deposits are a liability which can usually be called at any time.

The other capital comes from Equity and other Liabilities, but they are measured differently, some are given less credit, since they aren't as strong and cost more, others can be called differently. However *ALL* assets must be funded by liability or equity.

In the case of loans, they can be funded through the % requirement of reserve, usually in CDs or other deposits, and some type of liability + equity.

So, you get three funding sources which are funding a liability. Deposits, liabilities, and equity. Additionally, since all assets are risky but some are more risky than others.

Lets say that you have a 10% capital requirement, which returns 5%, 50% debt which pays 9%, and 40% equity, which pays 15%, then your Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC) equates to a "hurdle" rate of 11%.

That means, to meet the economic requirements of your bank, you *must* charge at least 11% interest on *all* assets. Considering that many assets are "dead" weight assets, such as buildings, you also have to charge more sometimes. Lets say you have to charge 12%.

How does 10% figure into that? Should a bank be required to charge 10% deposit * 6% interest or just .6% interest on all assets?

What is the right percentage? Should they not consider all other funding sources? Do you think that money is just made out of nothing and funds lent are just created from nowhere?

The bank keeps the fractional reserve with the Fed, which is why they get money out of the Fed system, because they cannot deploy that capital anywhere else. Otherwise, it's dead money.

However, the interest rate charged on loans shouldn't be anywhere near what the reserve gets.

Sorry, but your misconception is ridiculous and has no founding in finance. This is why you fail at convincing anybody who knows anything about finance that you actually know what you are talking about.

 

[0roo0roo]

quick pull out is about as responsible as his other policies

 

[event8horizon]

here are some interesting examples of the people that helped design the fed at work!! ive never actually read a creature from jeckyll island. i see the same names keep popping up.
After Hitler gained power, U.S. firms and individuals worked on behalf of Naziism and certainly profited from the Nazi state. We know from the diaries of William Dodd, the American Ambassador to Germany, that in 1933 a stream of Wall Street bankers and industrialists filed through the U.S. Embassy in Berlin, expressing their admiration for Adolf Hitler ? and anxious to find ways to do business with the new totalitarian regime. For example, on September 1, 1933 Dodd recorded that Henry Mann of the National City Bank and Winthrop W. Aldrich of the Chase Bank both met with Hitler and "these bankers feel they can work with him."1 Ivy Lee, the Rockefeller public relations agent, according to Dodd "showed himself at once a capitalist and an advocate of Fascism."2

-that shows morgan, rockefeller and aldrich's son.

remember that group that wanted to bring fascism to america:
In 1936, William Dodd, the U.S. Ambassador to Germany, wrote a letter to President Roosevelt in which he stated,

"A clique of U.S. industrialists is hell-bent to bring a fascist state to supplant our democratic government and is working closely with the fascist regime in Germany and Italy. I have had plenty of opportunity in my post in Berlin to witness how close some of our American ruling families are to the Nazi regime.... A prominent executive of one of the largest corporations, told me point blank that he would be ready to take definite action to bring fascism into America if President Roosevelt continued his progressive policies. Certain American industrialists had a great deal to do with bringing fascist regimes into being in both Germany and Italy. They extended aid to help Fascism occupy the seat of power, and they are helping to keep it there. Propagandists for fascist groups try to dismiss the fascist scare. We should be aware of the symptoms. When industrialists ignore laws designed for social and economic progress they will seek recourse to a fascist state when the institutions of our government compel them to comply with the provisions."

and from kuhn loeb and co
this is interesting ww1 stuf
The major German loans raised in the United States between 1915 and 1918, according to Heynen, were as follows: The first loan, of $400,000, was made about September 1914 by the investment bankers Kuhn, Loeb & Co. Collateral of 25 million marks was deposited with Max M. Warburg in Hamburg, the German affiliate of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. Captain George B. Lester of U.S. Military Intelligence told the Senate that Heynen's reply to the question "Why did you go to Kuhn, Loeb & Co?" was, "Kuhn, Loeb & Co. we considered the natural bankers of the German government and the Reichsbank."

jocob schiff has direct connections to the rothschilds. some interesting loans he made.
Over the years, before, during, and after World War I, his firm extended loans to many nations all around the world, but Schiff made sure none of the funds ever went to Russia, which continued to severely oppress the Jewish people. When the Tsar's government fell in 1917, Schiff believed that the oppression of Jews (and other peoples) would end. He became sympathetic for Alexander Kerensky's government, and formally repealed the impediments within his firm against lending to Russia. Of course, once the policies and doctrines of Lenin's and Trotsky's Soviet government became apparent, Schiff once more became bitterly opposed to aiding Russia in any way.

Jacob Schiff in fact made a public announcement and it was due to his financial influence that the Russian revolution was successfully accomplished and in the Spring 1917 Jacob Schitf started to finance Trotsky, a Jew, for the purpose of accomplishing a social revolution in Russia.
he also made a 200 million loan to the japense to defeat the russians before the revolution took place.

these were our enemies people!!!

 

[LegendKiller]

Were they our enemies in 1933? Hitler wasn't all that bad until he started invading and murdering countries and people. The major question is whether they continued after the war. I have not seen conclusive evidence that they did.

As far as the apparent planning to bring fascism here, it's never been proven to any large extent.

Nice rebuttals to my posts though. All you can do is post regurgitated BS with no thought.

 

[event8horizon]

this is good for our military industrial complex though. if anyone is interested, find out who owns the shares in these companies.
anthony sutton's book-The Best Enemy Money Can Buy

http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/best_enemy/preface.htm

An inevitable conclusion from the evidence in this book is that we have totally ignored a policy that would enable us to neutralize Soviet global ambitions while simultaneously reducing the defense budget and the tax load on American citizens. Whether we like it or not, technology is a political tool in today's world. And if we want to survive in the face of Soviet ambitions, we will have to use this weapon sooner or later. At the moment the combined efforts of the deaf mute blindmen have been successful. Only an informed, aroused electorate has sufficient potential power to counter their suicidal ambitions.

This book is not really designed to be read word for word. It is a kind of lawyer's brief, filled with facts that none of us will remember in detail. But if the facts were not included, the book's thesis would be too far-fetched to accept. He therefore includes pages and pages of dull, dreary details ? details that lead to an inescapable conclusion: that the West has been betrayed by its major corporate leaders, with the full compliance of its national political leaders.

From this time forward, you can say in confidence to anyone: "The United States financed the economic and military development of the Soviet Union. Without this aid, financed by U.S. taxpayers, there would be no significant Soviet military threat, for there would be no Soviet economy to support the Soviet military machine, let alone sophisticated military equipment." Should your listener scoff, you need only to hand him a copy of this book. it will stuff his mouth with footnotes.

think of all that money spent on the cold war along with all that money spent on funding the cia's /mujahadeen war in afghanistan to beat the soviets!! also think of the fear the u.s. lived in back in the cold war with nuclear missiles aimed at us. and school children having drills to prepare for a nuclear strike. partially responsibe are our bankers!!!

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Were they our enemies in 1933? Hitler wasn't all that bad until he started invading and murdering countries and people. The major question is whether they continued after the war. I have not seen conclusive evidence that they did.

As far as the apparent planning to bring fascism here, it's never been proven to any large extent.

Nice rebuttals to my posts though. All you can do is post regurgitated BS with no thought.

not many people know these things. im writing to inform as well. my thoughts are that the bankers dont necessarily have americas interests as number 1. u still havent told me about who you were referring to when u mentioned "alliance" when describing the fed. rebuttals to what?? the 10% thing i mentioned. i said it would be nice considering that the make the other 90% out of thin air. u said it was insured....im not that keen on big insurence companies especially that one that silverstein got to insure the towers!! sounded pretty shady. who insures the rest??

mein kampf was published in 1925. multiple editions after that. they knew what he represented. henry ford helped the effort. i remember reading he had many copies of the protocols of zion ready to distribute here in america but the cia shut that down with: According to writer Peter Grose, Allen Dulles, who was in Constantinople developing relationships in post-Ottoman political structures, discovered 'the source' of the documentation ultimately provided to The Times.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Were they our enemies in 1933? Hitler wasn't all that bad until he started invading and murdering countries and people. The major question is whether they continued after the war. I have not seen conclusive evidence that they did.

As far as the apparent planning to bring fascism here, it's never been proven to any large extent.

Nice rebuttals to my posts though. All you can do is post regurgitated BS with no thought.

not many people know these things. im writing to inform as well. my thoughts are that the bankers dont necessarily have americas interests as number 1. u still havent told me about who you were referring to when u mentioned "alliance" when describing the fed. rebuttals to what?? the 10% thing i mentioned. i said it would be nice considering that the make the other 90% out of thin air. u said it was insured....im not that keen on big insurence companies especially that one that silverstein got to insure the towers!! sounded pretty shady. who insures the rest??

mein kampf was published in 1925. multiple editions after that. they knew what he represented. henry ford helped the effort. i remember reading he had many copies of the protocols of zion ready to distribute here in america but the cia shut that down with: According to writer Peter Grose, Allen Dulles, who was in Constantinople developing relationships in post-Ottoman political structures, discovered 'the source' of the documentation ultimately provided to The Times.

How is 90% out of "thin air". Where does the bank get the money? They get it from investors, it isn't created out of "thin air". Only idiots believe that. If they have money to lend they have to get it from somewhere.

I never said anything about insurance or "alliances", perhaps you shoudl get your eyes checked.

I do not know where you are getting any of your crap. Sounds like you are actually pretty crazy. Did you go off your meds?

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Were they our enemies in 1933? Hitler wasn't all that bad until he started invading and murdering countries and people. The major question is whether they continued after the war. I have not seen conclusive evidence that they did.

As far as the apparent planning to bring fascism here, it's never been proven to any large extent.

Nice rebuttals to my posts though. All you can do is post regurgitated BS with no thought.

not many people know these things. im writing to inform as well. my thoughts are that the bankers dont necessarily have americas interests as number 1. u still havent told me about who you were referring to when u mentioned "alliance" when describing the fed. rebuttals to what?? the 10% thing i mentioned. i said it would be nice considering that the make the other 90% out of thin air. u said it was insured....im not that keen on big insurence companies especially that one that silverstein got to insure the towers!! sounded pretty shady. who insures the rest??

mein kampf was published in 1925. multiple editions after that. they knew what he represented. henry ford helped the effort. i remember reading he had many copies of the protocols of zion ready to distribute here in america but the cia shut that down with: According to writer Peter Grose, Allen Dulles, who was in Constantinople developing relationships in post-Ottoman political structures, discovered 'the source' of the documentation ultimately provided to The Times.

How is 90% out of "thin air". Where does the bank get the money? They get it from investors, it isn't created out of "thin air". Only idiots believe that. If they have money to lend they have to get it from somewhere.

I never said anything about insurance or "alliances", perhaps you shoudl get your eyes checked.

I do not know where you are getting any of your crap. Sounds like you are actually pretty crazy. Did you go off your meds?

im chasing an 11 month old around the house and trying to read.....i hope u understand. sorry.

from what ive read on the process-
It is a four-step process. But first a word on bonds. Bonds are simply promises to pay ? or government IOUs. People buy bonds to get a secure rate of interest. At the end of the term of the bond, the government repays the principal, plus interest (if not paid periodically), and the bond is destroyed. There are trillions of dollars worth of these bonds at present. Now here is the Fed moneymaking process:

Step 1. The Fed Open Market Committee approves the purchase of U.S. Bonds on the open market.

Step 2. The bonds are purchased by the New York Fed Bank from whomever is offering them for sale on the open market.

Step 3. The Fed pays for the bonds with electronic credits to the seller?s bank, which in turn credits the seller?s bank account. These credits are based on nothing tangible. The Fed just creates them.

Step 4. The banks use these deposits as reserves. Most banks may loan out ten times (10x) the amount of their reserves to new borrowers, all at interest.

In this way, a Fed purchase of, say a million dollars worth of bonds, gets turned into over 10 million dollars in bank deposits. The Fed, in effect, creates 10% of this totally new money and the banks create the other 90%.

This also explains why the Fed consistently holds about 10% of the total US Treasury bonds. It had to buy those (with accounts or Fed notes the Fed simply created) from the public in order to provide the base for the rest of the money the private banks then get to create, most of which eventually winds up being used to purchase Treasury bonds, thus supplying Congress with the borrowed money to pay for its expenditures.

Due to a number of important exceptions to the 10% reserve ratio, some loans require less than 10% reserves, and many no (0%) reserves, making it possible for banks to create many times more than ten times the money they have in ?reserve?. Due to these exceptions from the 10% reserve requirement, the Fed creates only a little under 2% of the total US money supply, while private banks create the other 98%.

To reduce the amount of money in the economy, the process is just reversed ? the Fed sells bonds to the public, and money flows out of the purchaser?s local bank. Loans must be reduced by ten times the amount of the sale. So a Fed sale of a million dollars in bonds, results in 10 million dollars less money in the economy.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Were they our enemies in 1933? Hitler wasn't all that bad until he started invading and murdering countries and people. The major question is whether they continued after the war. I have not seen conclusive evidence that they did.

As far as the apparent planning to bring fascism here, it's never been proven to any large extent.

Nice rebuttals to my posts though. All you can do is post regurgitated BS with no thought.

not many people know these things. im writing to inform as well. my thoughts are that the bankers dont necessarily have americas interests as number 1. u still havent told me about who you were referring to when u mentioned "alliance" when describing the fed. rebuttals to what?? the 10% thing i mentioned. i said it would be nice considering that the make the other 90% out of thin air. u said it was insured....im not that keen on big insurence companies especially that one that silverstein got to insure the towers!! sounded pretty shady. who insures the rest??

mein kampf was published in 1925. multiple editions after that. they knew what he represented. henry ford helped the effort. i remember reading he had many copies of the protocols of zion ready to distribute here in america but the cia shut that down with: According to writer Peter Grose, Allen Dulles, who was in Constantinople developing relationships in post-Ottoman political structures, discovered 'the source' of the documentation ultimately provided to The Times.

How is 90% out of "thin air". Where does the bank get the money? They get it from investors, it isn't created out of "thin air". Only idiots believe that. If they have money to lend they have to get it from somewhere.

I never said anything about insurance or "alliances", perhaps you shoudl get your eyes checked.

I do not know where you are getting any of your crap. Sounds like you are actually pretty crazy. Did you go off your meds?

im chasing an 11 month old around the house and trying to read.....i hope u understand. sorry.

from what ive read on the process-
It is a four-step process. But first a word on bonds. Bonds are simply promises to pay ? or government IOUs. People buy bonds to get a secure rate of interest. At the end of the term of the bond, the government repays the principal, plus interest (if not paid periodically), and the bond is destroyed. There are trillions of dollars worth of these bonds at present. Now here is the Fed moneymaking process:

Step 1. The Fed Open Market Committee approves the purchase of U.S. Bonds on the open market.

Step 2. The bonds are purchased by the New York Fed Bank from whomever is offering them for sale on the open market.

Step 3. The Fed pays for the bonds with electronic credits to the seller?s bank, which in turn credits the seller?s bank account. These credits are based on nothing tangible. The Fed just creates them.

Step 4. The banks use these deposits as reserves. Most banks may loan out ten times (10x) the amount of their reserves to new borrowers, all at interest.

In this way, a Fed purchase of, say a million dollars worth of bonds, gets turned into over 10 million dollars in bank deposits. The Fed, in effect, creates 10% of this totally new money and the banks create the other 90%.

This also explains why the Fed consistently holds about 10% of the total US Treasury bonds. It had to buy those (with accounts or Fed notes the Fed simply created) from the public in order to provide the base for the rest of the money the private banks then get to create, most of which eventually winds up being used to purchase Treasury bonds, thus supplying Congress with the borrowed money to pay for its expenditures.

Due to a number of important exceptions to the 10% reserve ratio, some loans require less than 10% reserves, and many no (0%) reserves, making it possible for banks to create many times more than ten times the money they have in ?reserve?. Due to these exceptions from the 10% reserve requirement, the Fed creates only a little under 2% of the total US money supply, while private banks create the other 98%.

To reduce the amount of money in the economy, the process is just reversed ? the Fed sells bonds to the public, and money flows out of the purchaser?s local bank. Loans must be reduced by ten times the amount of the sale. So a Fed sale of a million dollars in bonds, results in 10 million dollars less money in the economy.

If that isn't the most twisted series of mi-statements and misunderstanding I have *ever* heard I don't know of any other. That whole thing takes a small part of reality and just completely fucks with the truth. How you guys even come up with this and do not question it, I have no idea.

At this point, if you think that and have swallowed it like you have, there's nothing I can do for you. You won't listen, nor will you understand. It's not a hard thing to understand but you are simply ignorant to the reality and whether I tell you will make no difference at all.

 

[event8horizon]

well post exactly how they do it

 

[event8horizon]

well, as far as i can tell from multiple sites, a bank only needs 10% of the loan they issue u in their reserve. as soon as LK posts back, we will see what he says. and back to my point, some may have drawn the conclusion that the fed is privately owned from the court case. the people that designed how the fed works were bankers that designed a law for bankers. and from multiple examples, the bankers helped to finance our arch enemies.
now to the good part. Council on Foreign Relations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...l_on_Foreign_Relations

The earliest origin of the Council stemmed from a working fellowship of about 150 distinguished scholars, called "The Inquiry," tasked to brief President Woodrow Wilson about options for the postwar world when Germany was defeated. Some of the participants at that meeting were, apart from Edward House, Paul Warburg, Herbert Hoover, Harold Temperley, Lionel Curtis, Lord Eustace Percy, Christian Herter, and American academic historians James Thomson Shotwell of Columbia University, Archibald Cary Coolidge of Harvard and Charles Seymour(skull and bones) of Yale.
The Americans who subsequently returned from the conference became drawn to a discreet club of New York financiers and international lawyers who had organized previously in June 1918 and was headed by Elihu Root, J. P. Morgan's lawyer;[13] this select group called itself the Council on Foreign Relations.[14] They joined this group and the Council was formally established in New York on July 29, 1921, with 108 founding members, including Elihu Root as a leading member and John W. Davis, the chief counsel for J. P. Morgan & Co. and former Solicitor General for President Wilson,[15] as its founding president. Davis was to become Democratic presidential candidate in 1924.

Other members included John Foster Dulles(CIA), Herbert H. Lehman, Henry L. Stimson, Averell Harriman, the Rockefeller family's public relations expert, Ivy Lee,[16] and Paul M. Warburg and Otto H. Kahn of the law firm Kuhn, Loeb.[17]

do u see some familar names here. same people that helped form the fed also helped form the CFR.

this video has been posted before on some thread but it is relevant to this one too. it about how The CFR controls American media. remember the cia has its hands in the cfr. and if u learned about operation mockingbird, how the cia has great influence/manipulation of the media, then u can see them as working towards a similar goal perhaps.

http://video.google.com/videop...&type=search&plindex=1

what is that goal.
as paul warburg siad in front of the senate "We shall have world government whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World government will be achieved by conquest or consent"

"The main purpose of the Council on Foreign Relations is promoting the disarmament of U.S. sovereignty and national independence and submergence into an all powerful, one world government."
- Admiral Chester Ward, former CFR member and Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Navy