Yes! We're #1!

there was a whole spiel on the TV the other night about the US creating its own problems , and how it was doing what it did under cover of "plausible denial" .. arming its little terrorists with eastern bloc weapons so there was a plausibley deniable link between the US and its pet terrorists

the whole war/s are about calling their dogs to heel , or putting them down

while it was all pocket pissing secret secret stuff during the cold war , now its up to the average yank , the soldier , to go fix it

typical politicians f*ck it , and make it everyone elses job to fix it

Damn Myal, you're beginning to sound like an American!

Better watch it. The Crown doesn't take kindly to that kind of talk.

In the US we view being armed and defense as an inherent Right. In fact, we just love to have people tell us what not to do.

BTW, what became of the real Germans? They seem to have disappeared around 1300 AD.

True but that doesn't stop denial.

The federal reserve sets the reserve rate, which does "make" money, I'll agree. It makes no difference if that reserve is gold or government debt.

There is a pretty good argument for taking the power to set the reserve rate out of the hands of congress. Is giving such power to the federal reserve any better? Probably not, but someone needs to set it, and evil men will find ways of getting into the position to manipulate it and exploit it. If you really want to deal with the problem, you need to be able to find a better breed of man.

Why isn't it run by the government? Why does a private corporation get to control our money supply?

Several excellent videos on it: (several hours)

"Money Masters" is about the Fed and the income tax to finance the federal debt of money from nothing:

also, "Money, Banking and the Federal Reserve":

Freedom to Fascism

Zeitgeist - kinda goes off on a tangent with some anti-religion fuzzy logic, but has information about how the Fed caused the Great Depression and then got super rich on it:

Do you know the mortality rate for influenza? Didn't think so... . .

Aha. Well, I recognize the first as Bill Still's opus, and it's purported to be basically factual and quite good (although he's wrong about who owns most of the gold: the large majority of it is in the hands of private citizens. I suspect that NFL linebackers have a sizeable portion of it themselves...). Aside from his conclusion that Congress should be running the debt machine, none of it is a surprise to students of banking and the Federal Reserve who made it through upper-class-level economics courses on the subject. The events surrounding the banking act of 1913 are not news.

If you see it as a conspiracy, it would be worth your while to also read standard texts on the subject, for perspective. The Galbraith book I recommended isn't enough. It's for interested non-professionals who want the basic story about money (and it's a very good read).

So, after going through this, what would you recommend? Do you want to see Congress doing the modern equivalent of the "Free Silver, Cross of Gold" business? Or are you a gold bug? My own feeling is that Stuart has it about right, that keeping it in the hands of an organization with an interest in its success is a hell of a lot more effective than putting it in the hands of Congress, to whom success means getting re-elected.

Here's something to ponder in that regard: One of Still's comments, which I haven't heard him say myself but which I remember being commented upon by others, is that before WWI or whatever, 90% of people owned their property, while today something like 90% is owned by the banks. This probably is true (I've never checked the numbers, but it doesn't matter much). But Census figures show that fewer than half of householders in the US owned their homes in 1900, while over 2/3 did in 2000. In other words, most householders actually were renters before WWI, with no financial interest in the homes they lived in.

Whether the bank holds the paper or you do doesn't matter for the time you live in your house. Unlike a renter, you have much greater rights when you have a mortgage than a lease. You pay the bank what you would pay the property owner if you were a renter. So the net effect is quite positive.

That's the general character of a debt-based economy. It's a lot better in terms of people's actual lives. And eventually you own your own home outright, as I do. That's a very foolish thing for me to do, and I will be handing it back over to a bank very soon.

-- Ed Huntress

Dunno how we got here but it depends strongly on the strain and the infected population. The 'Spanish' flue of 1918-1919 had world-wide mortality probably less than 5%, perhaps less than 2%. But in some communities the mortality rate was much higher. The most peculiar aspect was that the mortality was highest among 20 to 50 year olds, who normally have the lowest mortality rate. For a time this was thought to be due to weakened resistance among WWI soldiers, but the same rate was observed in populations not involved in the war.

The bird flue we have been hearing about lately has had a mortality rate in humans of 50%.

Typical influenzas have a mortality rate of 01.%.

Ed Huntress wrote:hat's the general character of a debt-based economy. It's a lot better in

I'm hoping this last part is tongue very firmly in cheek?

Nope. Mortgage interest rates are some of the best I can get, and the interest is tax-deductable. With a kid in college, it's the smartest source of a loan for someone like me.

I won't mortgage the whole thing.

-- Ed Huntress

Abolish the Fed, create a government owned central bank. The Fed has been a disaster at keeping the economy stable.

No difference between gold and a debt of feit money??? lol

It should be kept in hands which want to get re-elected ever few years.

The economy was a lot more stable before the Fed was created. The Fed caused the great depression by calling in loans in mass. This forced the sale of stocks bought with loans, which drove down the stockmarket which caused the failures of banks in competition with the Fed. The Fed also bought up big corporations on pennies on the dollar. It was the biggest transfer of wealth since the Fed itself was created.

I don't think so. Before the present Federal Reserve system, our economy swung like a yo-yo, from the Panic of 1819 to the middle of the last century, with multiple depressions and a constant boom-bust cycle with deep recessions, for 100 years.

Since the Fed got a lot better, especially since Paul Volker, we've had one of the most stable economies in the world. That, despite some really fierce forces that were at work in the world markets.

Nothing in history even comes close to our present state of growth combined with relative stability. What's the history that you call upon as evidence that the government should own the central bank? Let's not go back to 1836, OK? d8-)

-- Ed Huntress

One of the interesting studies in money is the study of why gold is considered "real" money. It's actually the most ethereal and symbolic thing that value has been based on. Well, maybe clamshells are a little more symbolic.

The thing that gives every intelligent gold bug night sweats is the thought that the world may become somewhat more rational and realize that gold, while it looks nice and has a modest range of utility value, will be recognized to have less utility value, pound for pound, than cast iron.

"The full faith and credit of the United States" has had a lot more leverage in the world economy. Gold is a hedge, based on a presumption of continued irrationality. It generally is a good one in that regard, but betting on gold lunacy is better as a hedge bet than as a primary investment.

-- Ed Huntress

LOL

speaking only from what I seen going down around me ...

So now you claim that self-defense is evil? Apparently you value the lives of criminals over that of my and your family? Fascinating.

Oh, agreed, but I figured he wasn't getting that aspect of it so I'd give it to him in terms he was familiar with. No point in discussing fusion with someone who doesn't know how an atom works.

Yup. See above re: point of reference and targeting message to audience. And I fully acknowledge the pearls-before-swine aspects of same.

My viking ancestors seem to have kicked my German ancestors' collective asses for a few centuries by then. Might be related. But, I'm USA'n despite using a German news host.

Or, in the case of myal, gullible idiots.