The Central Banking Fraud

[arrowman]

I've explained at some length why I'm not going to bother watching the doco. Why are you not acknowledging what i am saying?

Although I must admit that the amount of time I am spending on this thread is making my claim that I don't want to waste 3.5 hours of my life, ook a little shaky so I will give it away, with this - and this is advice, not criticism:

You clearly know very little about economics, or the way banking and national finance systems work. Your acceptance of the more ridiculous points from the doco, that I have highlighted in this thread, shows that. And your lack of response to my comments shows that you do not have a truly open mind.

The world is full of people who believe whacky things - including that the earth is flat. And the rise of the internet gives those people an opportunity to publish their ideas more widely than ever before. And some of those ideas can look pretty credible to people who don't have great knowledge of the field in question - whether it be economics, physics etc.

You need to keep these things in mind when you do your "research". And you need to remember that "research" means studying up on the subject, understanding it, and reading both points of view - not just reading more material from the same sources and believing it.

Now I know that you wll throw the last para back at me - both side and all that - to which I simply respond - what I have said above.

 

[Mr Crow!]

See, this is what is HIGHLY amusing... you state: "Your acceptance of the more ridiculous points from the doco, that I have highlighted in this thread, shows that." Yet YOU haven't even WATCHED the documentary!!!! Isn't this the height of hypocrisy!

"And you need to remember that "research" means studying up on the subject, understanding it, and reading both points of view - not just reading more material from the same sources and believing it."

Reading both points of view??? That is what I am trying to endorse, yet you won't watch the documentary!!!

 

[arrowman]

See, this is what is HIGHLY amusing... you state: "Your acceptance of the more ridiculous points from the doco, that I have highlighted in this thread, shows that." Yet YOU haven't even WATCHED the documentary!!!! Isn't this the height of hypocrisy!

Shrug, I was responding to points that you quoted. Were your quotes not accurate?

If you want someone to watch a doco and "learn" from it, you'd do well not to quote ridiculous assertions from the doco.

"And you need to remember that "research" means studying up on the subject, understanding it, and reading both points of view - not just reading more material from the same sources and believing it."

Reading both points of view??? That is what I am trying to endorse, yet you won't watch the documentary!!!

Read the last paragraph of my post. I'm tired of saying things that are ignored.

I am, more than ever, convinced that your "research" will involve simpyl reading more material from the same sources and will not involve (a) learning more about the subject so that you may read more critically, and/or (b) reading from alternative / rebuttal sources.

 

[Mr Crow!]

You are being hypocritical! You are stating that I should research all points of the issue, yet you refuse to do the same!

 

[simpleton]

Oh, and PS:
And without inflation, there would be no need for interest. And since inflation (to some degree) is an inevitable result of a growing economy, interest is therefore inevitable.

Even with no inflation there would still be a need for interest. The purpose for interest is not only to compensate the lender for inflation but it also compensates the lender for delaying consumption, risk that the borrower will default and loss of liquidity.

 

[manmountain]

Banks charge interest! But that would mean I would pay back MORE than I originally borrowed! Oh my God, I have been fleeced by these banks and I had no idea. Thank you Mr Crow for opening up my eyes to this systematic rort.

Riddle me this Crow-boy:

1) If this 'theory' is true, then why has no government in the world ever moved to put an end to it?

2) If this information is bullet-proof and is based on sound principles, why has not one single credible media outlet ever covered it, or why has their never been any public outcry?

3) The US government is the single most powerful organisation in the world at the moment - if they were getting royally ar$e-fukced why have they not changed their system?

(These are questions raised by the information you have posted - I do not need to watch the program to have these queries - if you can't reply without imploring me to watch it then don't bother replying at all)

 

[Mr Crow!]

Riddle me this Crow-boy:

1) If this 'theory' is true, then why has no government in the world ever moved to put an end to it?

I guess you have never heard of Presidents Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy?

 

[manmountain]

OK, suppose for a second that those presidents did move to put an end to this alleged rort.

How did they firstly become aware of it and secondly take steps to end it? JFK doesn't just jump on the phone, ring the Federal Reserve and say "cut it out" does he? He would have been alerted to it by his advisers, discussed it with other members of his party, devised plans to combat it, etc, etc, etc.

In other words, a large number of people would have had to have been involved if JFK was making moves to put an end to it. Fast forward a few days and someone puts a bullet in his head. Why does not one single person make the link - it's not a widely circulated theory that the Federal Reserve was somehow involved as far as I'm aware?

I just can't see how that could occur and the only people in the world who are awake to it are the creators of some poorly designed website.

 

[Mr Crow!]

Well, if everyone just bloody watched the documentary, read the links I provided, then it would answer your questions!

 

[Mr Crow!]

President Kennedy, the Federal Reserve and Executive Order 11110 (PDF file that examines the Executive Order by JFK to produce United States Notes [backed by silver] instead of Federal Reserve Notes)

 

[lenny&carl]

Mr Crow, have you read The Creature?

 

[Mr Crow!]

Do you mean "The Creature from Jekyll Island"???

 

[Frodo]

I downloaded it and started watching...gave up quite quickly. Arrowman got it right without watching it IMHO.

 

[rickster]

Orcs!!!!! Where?

 

[arrowman]

Orcs!!!!! Where?

They're controlling petrol prices. Don't you know anything?

 

[utility]

Unlike most here I actually bothered to watch the documentary. The major problem with it is it is biased to a particular point of view BUT it does raise factual events that are worth knowing about that are not commonly known. Regarding the issue of usury (and fractional lending) it is one related to ethical beliefs so different people will have different points of view.

I think if you buy everything that is said or ignore and deny everything that is said in the doco you are living in a world of ignorance. Before and after watching it I have and had no doubt in my mind that international bankers are pure evil scum.


"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws." - Mayer Amschel Rothschild, 1790

 

[Mr Crow!]

At least you had the decency and courtesy of actually watching the entire thing before forming an opinion on it.

I don't care if someone dislikes it, but for people to make judgement or opinion of something (any issue really), without actually knowing the facts, is the height of arrogance and ignorance.

 

[Frodo]

At least you had the decency and courtesy of actually watching the entire thing before forming an opinion on it.

I don't care if someone dislikes it, but for people to make judgement or opinion of something (any issue really), without actually knowing the facts, is the height of arrogance and ignorance.

Bit of a silly view, really.

Most people will start watching a documentary and if/ once they discern that it is biased switch it off and do something more useful. That is neither arrogant or ignorant, just rational.

 

[arrowman]

At least you had the decency and courtesy of actually watching the entire thing before forming an opinion on it.

I don't care if someone dislikes it, but for people to make judgement or opinion of something (any issue really), without actually knowing the facts, is the height of arrogance and ignorance.

Mr Crow, I have explained several times why I am not going to spend 3.5 hours watching the documentary. I do not owe you that "courtesy". My explanation has been based on some of the points you have cited from that documentary - points which, as I have explained, illustrate perfectly well why the documentary is of, shall we say, dubious credibility.

You have not had the courtesy to answer or even acknowledge the points that I have made. I have offered you advice on how to assess this sort of material, and I have asserted that you are not likely to "research" the subject beyond simply reading/watching more material from the same sources, and accepting it as credible.

Your sole response has been to insist, repeatedly, that I download 3.5 hours of video (on my dialup connection) and then watch it, before you will engage in any further discussion.

Do not speak to me of "courtesy".

 

[medusala]

* There is a common misconception that the Federal Reserve is a Federal Agency. This is a common mistake. In fact it is a conglomerate of private banks, whose sole goal is to make a profit. For example, I believe that the largest bank of the Federal Reserve is the Chase Manhatten bank... however, I will have to confirm that with further research. The only link to the Federal Government is that the US President appoints the Governor of the Reserve Bank.

So you would rather central banks being run by the govt rather than being independent? See below as counter to your above points.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Banks

The United States Federal Reserve System consists of twelve Federal Reserve Banks, each responsible for a particular district, and some with branches.

The twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by the Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized much like private corporations—possibly leading to some confusion about “ownership.” For example, the Federal Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Federal Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Federal Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the system. The stock may not be sold or traded or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, limited to 6 percent per year

* The Government authories the Federal Reserve to print money, however, the Government pays interest on this at face value. For example, while it costs the same to print a bank note, no matter what denomination, ie: $1, $5, $10, $100, etc... the Government pays interest on the face value of the note. This is Usury by definition. This is the main cause of the national debt. President Lincoln and President Kennedy attempted to introduce interest free money. Lincoln did this via Greenbacks, and Kennedy via US Treasury Notes.

No idea what you are talking about here. The Fed sets the Fed Funds rate which is basically the rate at which banks can borrow. Govt pays interest on Treasury notes issued by the Treasury not the Fed.

* Economists state that there is the 'economic cycle' of booms and busts. This is a complete fallacy. What causes booms and busts / recessions / depressions is either the banks flooding the market with money and making available loans (boom) or contracting the money supply, calling in loans without creating new ones (bust). It is a manipulation where the banks benefit in both situation.

You are in a very small school of thought if you think there is no economic cycle. The banks and financial institutions arent great beneficiaries of recessions. If you recall in the late 80's a number went broke ie Rothwells, Estate Mortgage, Pyramid, couple of state banks etc. How does Bondy etc going broke owing billions benefit the banks to whom the cash is owed?

* With fractional reserve banking, a bank only has to have a minimum amount actually kept in the bank, ie: usually 10%. That is why it is impossible for everyone to go to a bank at once and withdraw their money... that is a 'run on the banks'. Banks can then loan out the remaining 90% at interest, money that does not exist! Sounds strange, but that is how it works... I will provide further detail soon.

Alternatively you could stick to the gold standard where each $ was backed by a specific amount of gold and could be exchanged for it. Look on Wikipedia for reasons why the gold standard ended and why some economists (very few ) support its reintroduction.

 

[utility]

The banks and financial institutions arent great beneficiaries of recessions. If you recall in the late 80's a number went broke ie Rothwells, Estate Mortgage, Pyramid, couple of state banks etc. How does Bondy etc going broke owing billions benefit the banks to whom the cash is owed?

How many reserve banks went bust?

 

[simpleton]

Regarding the issue of usury (and fractional lending) it is one related to ethical beliefs so different people will have different points of view.

"Usury (and fractional lending)" is only related to ethical beiefs for backwards and superstitous people. There are many logical reasons for charging interest which I have outlined previously in this thread. In fact it could be argued that it unethical NOT to pay interest when you borrow money.