FED Conspiracy theories

[SpringHallConvert]

Is it that people are not being informed of the reality of the fiscal hole we're digging for ourselves, or that they don't want to be? Nobody likes to think about the problem, since there are very few viable solutions. I'm not sure ignorance on this issue should necessarily be attributed to a conspiracy.

Of course it's a conspiracy. What, you think everything that's happening in our political system is an accident of ignorance? That the way the people are being groomed to react to what's happening is an accident of ignorance?

Franklin Delano Roosevelt:

In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.

The problem I have with this is that there are a number of other, simpler explanations for any number of those "pieces" than the existence of a grand financial conspiracy that's inciting and controlling all of them.

Like what?

You can say that, but that doesn't really help me figure out how to find evidence that this control is being exerted.

Carroll Quigley explains that in his book, Tragedy & Hope. I can't do your research for you. You actually have to make a conscious decision to open your mind and set out to answer the numerous questions you have posed here.

I don't have the time to go over that in detail at the moment, but a quick perusal makes me think that that term doesn't as easily or readily apply to this issue as you think it does.

Based on?

In general, the idea seems to be that a given idea gives rise to a counterpoint, then the point and counterpoint get unified into one idea with the best traits of both. This is how I think things are supposed to work, and it doesn't give me any reason to believe that this process is intentionally being shaped by political power brokers.

The people of this country largely gather their information about the issues from the corporate media. Once again, the corporate media. If the media frames the debate for the public by providing both their versions of the thesis viewpoint and antithesis viewpoint, how is the public going to determine the best course of action when choices have been subversively provided to them already by corporate entities disguised as news agencies?

Why would you think that this is how it's supposed to work? Are you deliberately trying to not think critically?

In fact, applying Occam's razor to this, I come up with the idea that these wedge issues get air time because people have a tendency to care more than they should about minor issues, not necessarily because there's some grand strategy at the upper levels of finance to drive these issues for their benefit.

This is pretty naive, don't you think? People don't know about a given issue until Big Media reports it. This is the point at which the media packages an issue for maximum effect, to make the people care. The people generally care or don't care about an issue based on how it's already been sold to them by those who present the issues.

You're putting the cart before the horse with your viewpoint.

My main problem with this is that you haven't provided any evidence that things would really be so much better without the Fed. I know you've said that the US economy survived perfectly fine before the Fed. I'm not convinced. About five minutes on Wikipedia reveals multiple financial crises before the Fed existed.

I think this article addresses those crises rather well.

I bring this up because people who support government and central economic intervention will often bring up the "financial panics" in the 1800s to show how disastrous a free market is. But the truth is that the government protections placed on banks helped cause a great majority of the panics. Because of the government protection, banks were able to take unnatural risks that never would have been possible in a free market. Government shielded banks when the fractional reserve process failed. In other words, the government protected the fractional reserve system in order to benefit banks, not the citizens.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=20605

The solution to those bank panics was clearly not a central bank, but something else entirely the opposite.

I think there is some need to control economic factors like the inflation rate and that the Fed currently does so.

Clearly this is false. The inflation of the mid to late 1970s, for instance, was completely outside the Fed's normal course of operations. Moreover, the Fed's targeted inflation rate has been eclipsed numerous other times over the last 97 years and, once again, there's no earthly reason why we must be afflicted with inflation (wealth redistribution) at all. The U.S. economy grew by leaps and bounds between 1787 and 1913 without the Federal Reserve artificially pumping up the economy through inflation. Go back and look at that graph I posted and look at the continuity of that line.

You have yet to convince me otherwise or to provide an alternate solution for maintaining control of some of these economic factors.

Control of what economic factors? Maybe you should convince me of why the Federal Reserve is necessary when they clearly haven't been able to put a stop to bank panics, recessions, depressions, inflation, high unemployment, and financial industry corruption.

Before the creation of the Federal Reserve the United States grew from an undeveloped, former British colony into an economic powerhouse that was needed to save the Allies from losing WW1.

After the creation of the Federal Reserve the United States has slowly shrunk from the world's undisputed economic powerhouse to financial banana republic reliant on Chinese money and industry to keep the bills paid and store shelves filled.

Think about that. World's foremost creditor nation to world's foremost debtor nation in just a few generations.

The Federal Reserve is the coach of our economic football team, and our football team has been getting worse and worse going all the way back to at least 1960, especially in relation to our competitors around the world. At what point do you stop making excuses for our coach and start pointing your finger?

It's time to get rid of the coach. He's not taking this team in the right direction any longer.

 

[SpringHallConvert]

No they're just bored because you continue to see useful things like "interest" as evil in spite of it being explained to you in detail why it exists.

Interest on real money representing a real, produced, and accumulated value (gold, silver, oil, public works project, labor, etc...) I can understand, but interest on paper printed out of thin air doesn't fly, and nobody here can rationally explain why it does.

Also you keep saying the Fed crashed the economy.

Let's see here...

Outrageously low interest rates for a prolonged period of time, proliferation of cheap money, loose credit, allowing a dangerous bubble economy to form, flourishing malinvestment across the entire economic spectrum, asleep at the wheel while the banking industry they are responsible for regulating overflows with corruption and fraud, and a Fed chairman who didn't want the American people informed of the debate secretly going on at the Fed:

As top Federal Reserve officials debated whether there was a housing bubble and what to do about it, then-Chairman Alan Greenspan argued that dissent should be kept secret so that the Fed wouldn't lose control of the debate to people less well-informed than themselves.

"We run the risk, by laying out the pros and cons of a particular argument, of inducing people to join in on the debate, and in this regard it is possible to lose control of a process that only we fully understand," Greenspan said, according to the transcripts of a March 2004 meeting.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/03/greenspan-wanted-housing_n_560965.html

And what was the result of all of this?

Great Depression 2.0.

 

[Lyrandar]

Of course it's a conspiracy. What, you think everything that's happening in our political system is an accident of ignorance? That the way the people are being groomed to react to what's happening is an accident of ignorance?

Franklin Delano Roosevelt:

I call that paranoia, not critical thinking. I am willing to bet that all good politicians have a plan for any number of various different events and ways to spin them to their advantage, but that doesn't mean they caused the circumstances they're reacting to.

Carroll Quigley explains that in his book, Tragedy & Hope. I can't do your research for you. You actually have to make a conscious decision to open your mind and set out to answer the numerous questions you have posed here.

If you can give me so much as a quick synopsis, that would help.

Based on?

The Wikipedia article I linked to is describing a philosophical idea. Those tend to map to real world issues relatively poorly.

The people of this country largely gather their information about the issues from the corporate media. Once again, the corporate media. If the media frames the debate for the public by providing both their versions of the thesis viewpoint and antithesis viewpoint, how is the public going to determine the best course of action when choices have been subversively provided to them already by corporate entities disguised as news agencies?

Why would you think that this is how it's supposed to work? Are you deliberately trying to not think critically?

What about the blogosphere, YouTube, etc.? There are plenty of ways to find ideas ranging from the sensible to the completely insane. There are plenty of ways for the common people to get their own ideas out.

Also, you emphasize the corporate nature of the news media, but what that means to me is that they have to present stories based on what the public wants to see if they want to keep viewership up, make money, and stay in business. They can spin things to influence the reactions, but if they go too far then alternate sources end up taking their viewers.

Finally, this is partly an issue the people need to take care of, by being critical thinkers that look at a variety of sources.

This is pretty naive, don't you think? People don't know about a given issue until Big Media reports it. This is the point at which the media packages an issue for maximum effect, to make the people care. The people generally care or don't care about an issue based on how it's already been sold to them by those who present the issues.

You're putting the cart before the horse with your viewpoint.

This may have been true so much as five years ago. It's not true now, not with the way the Internet has developed.

Even with that, I'm willing to agree that the media packages the issues in ways that affects how the people respond to it. I think they do so more to keep viewers attracted and make money than as part of some grand conspiracy though.

I think this article addresses those crises rather well.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=20605

The solution to those bank panics was clearly not a central bank, but something else entirely the opposite.

Problem one: I don't trust that source to be unbiased, nor do I trust them to have any care for how the world works today as opposed to how it worked when the Constitution was written or in the early 20th century. The world changes too fast, particularly now, to unthinkingly take every word from two centuries ago as gospel.

Problem two: How does forcing banks to maintain 100% reserve rates in any way, shape, or form represent less government intervention? They go on and on about the free market, yet request a situation which would require as much or more government intervention. I have a suspicion that if complete deregulation and no government interference actually came about, those banks would keep even less money on hand, since it doesn't do them any good sitting around.

Clearly this is false. The inflation of the mid to late 1970s, for instance, was completely outside the Fed's normal course of operations. Moreover, the Fed's targeted inflation rate has been eclipsed numerous other times over the last 97 years and, once again, there's no earthly reason why we must be afflicted with inflation (wealth redistribution) at all. The U.S. economy grew by leaps and bounds between 1787 and 1913 without the Federal Reserve artificially pumping up the economy through inflation. Go back and look at that graph I posted and look at the continuity of that line.

You're taking a complicated issue in a complicated field and looking at exactly one factor; the presence or absence of the Federal Reserve. I do not find that to be a convincing argument at all.

You're also ignoring the fact that the Federal Reserve is not ever going to be perfect. Yes, there have been some mistakes. They do not necessarily mean the idea as a whole is bad.

Control of what economic factors? Maybe you should convince me of why the Federal Reserve is necessary when they clearly haven't been able to put a stop to bank panics, recessions, depressions, inflation, high unemployment, and financial industry corruption.

What makes you think your ideas would have fixed all these problems?

Think about that. World's foremost creditor nation to world's foremost debtor nation in just a few generations.

The Federal Reserve is the coach of our economic football team, and our football team has been getting worse and worse going all the way back to at least 1960, especially in relation to our competitors around the world. At what point do you stop making excuses for our coach and start pointing your finger?

It's time to get rid of the coach. He's not taking this team in the right direction any longer.

The US has been trying to do more and more in more places around the world for the past few decades. We've overreached ourselves financially, yes. That doesn't make this the Fed's fault.

To use your analogy, if the coach of a football team is forced to work with the worst players the owners can find, he's not going to do very well.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

How do you know they are facts? How do you know Edward Flaherty isn't a paid Fed shill put on the web to spread disinformation? I mean, how do you really know?

Because I know how central banks work, I know what their role is, I know what their mandate is. You obviously do not. I wasn’t holding Flaherty up as the be-all and end-all of information, just a nice collection of facts in opposition to the ignorant conspiracy drivel you’re spouting. I’m sorry you want to believe in conspiracies so badly that you are unable to digest factual information. I can only suggest (again) that you take a few classes in economics and learn why fiat isn’t evil, why fractional lending is a good idea, why the Board of Governors is a Federal Government Agency, amongst all kinds of other fun facts you might find useful in real life. Good luck.

 

[SpringHallConvert]

Because I know how central banks work, I know what their role is, I know what their mandate is.

By what measure are you so sure? How do you really know? A couple of books? A professor or two? Because you saw something on TV?

You obviously do not.

Again, how do you know? How do you know you aren't operating from false premises?

I wasn’t holding Flaherty up as the be-all and end-all of information, just a nice collection of facts in opposition to the ignorant conspiracy drivel you’re spouting.

How do you know they are facts? Because he pulls from sources you agree with or reaches conclusions you want him to reach?

I’m sorry you want to believe in conspiracies so badly that you are unable to digest factual information.

By what process have you determined what you believe about the Federal Reserve to be factual information when they operate under such tight secrecy and were spawned in secrecy? The audit done on the Federal Reserve isn't a complete audit. It's only a partial audit.

How can you be so sure they aren't engaging in economic shenanigans?

I can only suggest (again) that you take a few classes in economics and learn why fiat isn’t evil, why fractional lending is a good idea, why the Board of Governors is a Federal Government Agency, amongst all kinds of other fun facts you might find useful in real life. Good luck.

Should I attend the kind of classes taught by the kind of professors referenced in that Huggington Post article I linked earlier? Here's a refresher:

The Federal Reserve, through its extensive network of consultants, visiting scholars, alumni and staff economists, so thoroughly dominates the field of economics that real criticism of the central bank has become a career liability for members of the profession, an investigation by the Huffington Post has found.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/07/priceless-how-the-federal_n_278805.html?view=screen

Perhaps you took some economics classes taught be a former Fed scholar who was trained not think for himself, and as a result, you didn't receive a very good education about the Federal Reserve.

Is that at all possible? If not, why?

 

[dudalb]

And Fractional Banking is a totally seperate issue then The Fed.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

By what measure are you so sure? How do you really know? A couple of books? A professor or two? Because you saw something on TV?

These questions can just as easily be asked of yourself. Would you be willing to answer them?

 

[Sceptic-PK]

By what measure are you so sure? How do you really know? A couple of books? A professor or two? Because you saw something on TV?

From reading books, listening to economists, reading central bank minutes, and having a general appreciation for how central banks work and their place/role within the economy. The information is readily available all over the place.

Again, how do you know? How do you know you aren't operating from false premises?

Well, for a start the alternative hypotheses espoused by people like yourself don’t actually make any sense, and no country in the world would have a central bank that works the way you think it does.

How do you know they are facts? Because he pulls from sources you agree with or reaches conclusions you want him to reach?

Because they make sense for starters, but also because the Fed is similar to every other central bank around the world.

By what process have you determined what you believe about the Federal Reserve to be factual information when they operate under such tight secrecy and were spawned in secrecy?

They don’t operate under tight secrecy at all, and this fallacy just illustrates you don’t know what you’re talking about.

The audit done on the Federal Reserve isn't a complete audit. It's only a partial audit.

The Fed is independent within government, having monetary policy exempt from political meddling is part of what makes central banks work. Every other part of the Fed is audited regularly by the GAO. Monetary policy is not in order to assure its independence from Congress.

How can you be so sure they aren't engaging in economic shenanigans?

I don’t. However in the absence of evidence, as a sceptic I will remain unconvinced, especially by someone like you who can’t even get the basics right.

Should I attend the kind of classes taught by the kind of professors referenced in that Huggington Post article I linked earlier? Here's a refresher:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/07/priceless-how-the-federal_n_278805.html?view=screen

That article has nothing to do with your erroneous claims about how the Fed is structured etc. If you wish to make an argument concerning the article then make another thread; this topic is about the conspiracy theories (which you yourself have bought into).

Perhaps you took some economics classes taught be a former Fed scholar who was trained not think for himself, and as a result, you didn't receive a very good education about the Federal Reserve.

Is that at all possible? If not, why?

Well for one I am unlikely to meet anyone that worked at the Fed as it’s not my central bank. But mostly I know your scenario is impossible because the alternative theories proposed by people like yourself are demonstrably wrong. For instance, not even knowing that central banks return their profits (minus expenses) to their treasuries just makes you look foolish, if and when you claim that we’re the ones who don’t understand central banking.

 

[SpringHallConvert]

These questions can just as easily be asked of yourself. Would you be willing to answer them?

Absolutely. I'll go first.

Before I ever read a single thing about the Federal Reserve, before I ever heard of G. Edward Griffin, before I ever contemplated a single conspiracy, I came to find out that the dollars in my pocket were loaned into existence. That all the money in our economy is loaned into existence.

This startled me. Not in a surprised way, but in a disturbed, curious kind of way. Most people probably wouldn't have given that revelation much thought, but it nagged at every fiber of my being. I contemplated this for a short time and came up with two questions that I just had to know the answers to:

1. Who is it that gets to loan us our money?

2. What was the source of wealth these money loaners were drawing from to give our money it's value?

After researching these questions as objectively as possible, I came to find out that the answer was as ridiculous and bothersome as any answer I had ever learned of in my entire life. A private cartel of banks loans us our money and the source of wealth they drew from to give our money it's value was nothing at all. No gold. No oil. No land. Nothing. Zip. Even worse, I came to find out that each dollar loaned - paper money and credit alike - carried a burden of interest that the people of America are made responsible for.

How in the hell can interest be earned on a loan derived from nothing? I can imagine interest earned on almost anything else, but nothing? That's simply preposterous! That's money for nothing, just like the Dire Straits song!

That's why I was confident that something just wasn't right. The design of such a devious, unethical system could only have come to fruition by careful planning and bad intentions.

That's why, to me, the Federal Reserve and the U.S. monetary system can only mean one thing: Conspiracy. Conspiracy at the highest levels of government and banking. Collusion and conspiracy to defraud the entire population of the United States. To convert paper notes, bills, and bonds into wealth without it being earned properly.

And that's where I am at today. I know there's a conspiracy. I don't need anybody to really explain for me how, what, or why. I just know, and nothing can convince me otherwise.

The real question for me at this point is what are the goals of the conspiracy, who are the specific players, how might my life be impacted, and what does it mean for the rest of world?

I have questioned many of the things I've read by both mainstream writers like Greider and alternative writers like Griffin, but I believe the most likely accounts of what took place at Jekyll Island come from those viewing history through the conspiratorial lens.

All my research since that time has only confirmed my ominous suspicions. I may doubt bits and pieces of it, but I think the overall picture of a world shaped by a massive ongoing conspiracy is quite accurate.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

1. Who is it that gets to loan us our money?

The interest on money printed is returned to the Treasury.

2. What was the source of wealth these money loaners were drawing from to give our money it's value?

Money has value for the same reason other things have value- because we believe it does.

After researching these questions as objectively as possible

Given your opinions I find this terribly difficult to believe.

A private cartel of banks loans us our money and the source of wealth they drew from to give our money it's value was nothing at all.

The Federal Reserve is a quasi government agency, the member banks are privately owned but the board (who make all the decisions) is a government agency. It certainly isn’t a “private cartel”.

No gold. No oil. No land. Nothing. Zip.

This is only correct now, the dollars at the time of the creation of the Fed were backed by gold. Please get your facts straight.

Even worse, I came to find out that each dollar loaned - paper money and credit alike - carried a burden of interest that the people of America are made responsible for.

Completely incorrect. As stated a number of times, all interest made by a central bank is returned to the treasury, minus its operating expenses. If you don’t believe me I suggest you look at the Fed’s balance sheets.

How in the hell can interest be earned on a loan derived from nothing? I can imagine interest earned on almost anything else, but nothing? That's simply preposterous! That's money for nothing, just like the Dire Straits song!

Your premise is wrong.

That's why I was confident that something just wasn't right. The design of such a devious, unethical system could only have come to fruition by careful planning and bad intentions.

Again, as your premise is wrong so are your conclusions.

And that's where I am at today. I know there's a conspiracy. I don't need anybody to really explain for me how, what, or why. I just know, and nothing can convince me otherwise.

At least your honest. This kind of intellectual dishonesty is typical of conspiracy theorists. Nothing can convince them because they are immune to facts and logic.

All my research since that time has only confirmed my ominous suspicions. I may doubt bits and pieces of it, but I think the overall picture of a world shaped by a massive ongoing conspiracy is quite accurate.

And you’re wrong. That’s all there is to say.

 

[SpringHallConvert]

The interest on money printed is returned to the Treasury.

And what about all the interest on money not printed? Where does all that interest on loan money created out of nothing end up?

Money has value for the same reason other things have value- because we believe it does.

"Other things" like gold, oil, and land have certain uses - industrial or otherwise. They have actual, not imagined value.

To compare paper fiat money to these necessary things shows either a lack of honesty or intelligence.

Given your opinions I find this terribly difficult to believe.

Likewise.

The Federal Reserve is a quasi government agency, the member banks are privately owned but the board (who make all the decisions) is a government agency. It certainly isn’t a “private cartel”.

Yes, it is a private cartel. Those who own the shares of the Federal Reserve are private actors, not government actors.

This is only correct now, the dollars at the time of the creation of the Fed were backed by gold. Please get your facts straight.

Since I wasn't around prior to the Roosevelt gold confiscation, I was clearly talking about the dollars in my pocket at this time. As in now.

Completely incorrect. As stated a number of times, all interest made by a central bank is returned to the treasury, minus its operating expenses. If you don’t believe me I suggest you look at the Fed’s balance sheets.

Printed money only makes up a fraction of all money in existence. How about loan money at the commercial banking level?

Is the Federal Reserve System not a gigantic subsidy to the financial industry?

Also, what about the profit the Federal Reserve System makes from loaning money to banks?

Your premise is wrong.

I can't take your word for it. You think valuable items only have value because we imagine them to.

Again, as your premise is wrong so are your conclusions.

I'm not convinced you're an authority.

At least your honest. This kind of intellectual dishonesty is typical of conspiracy theorists. Nothing can convince them because they are immune to facts and logic.

Your facts and logic are clearly in question here.

And you’re wrong. That’s all there is to say.

I'm not so sure of that.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

And what about all the interest on money not printed? Where does all that interest on loan money created out of nothing end up?

What are you talking about? All the interest received by the Fed is returned to the Treasury (minus expenses).

"Other things" like gold, oil, and land have certain uses - industrial or otherwise. They have actual, not imagined value.

To compare paper fiat money to these necessary things shows either a lack of honesty or intelligence.

No, having an illogical and childish fear of fiat money systems is what highlights lack of intelligence. Money has a use, it is a medium of exchange.

Yes, it is a private cartel. Those who own the shares of the Federal Reserve are private actors, not government actors.

I’m not really sure how much more simple any of us can put it. Like you said, “nothing can change your mind”. But you’re wrong. It’s not a cartel. It is a collection of privately owned banks and the decisions of the bank are made by the government, the Federal agency the Board of Directors. You’ll find most central banks are organised in a similar vein.

Member banks are mandated to purchase stock in the Fed. They cannot sell that stock and your implicit assertion that stock in the Fed is the same as stock held in other companies is demonstrably wrong.

Printed money only makes up a fraction of all money in existence. How about loan money at the commercial banking level?

“Printed” in this context is a euphemism for all and any money created by the Fed. Stop being obtuse. Money loaned at the commercial bank level is paid by the client to the lender, as is part of their contract. So what? If you don’t want to pay interest on a loan, don’t take out a loan! It’s not rocket science.

Is the Federal Reserve System not a gigantic subsidy to the financial industry?

No.

Also, what about the profit the Federal Reserve System makes from loaning money to banks?

Which part of “the Federal Reserves (and all modern central banks) return all their profits back to their relevant Treasury departments” don’t you understand? And why don’t you understand it?

I can't take your word for it. You think valuable items only have value because we imagine them to.

That is pretty much the standard definition of “value” in the context we’re talking about. Dollar notes have value because they are backed by the US government and its promise that all debt/goods may be satisfied with those dollar notes. This is the same in every country that uses fiat (virtually all of them as far as I am aware). Currencies stopped being tied to commodities for several very good reasons, FYI.

I'm not convinced you're an authority.

I don’t pretend to be an authority, but I absolutely know more about central banking than you do.

Your facts and logic are clearly in question here.

Actually, I think you’ll find everyone here is questioning your logic.

I'm not so sure of that.

Of course you’re not sure of that. You’re a conspiracy theorist who has already claimed that no amount of logic or evidence could change their mind. I certainly wouldn’t expect my minor ramblings to have any impact on somebody so narrow-minded, uneducated and ignorant.

 

[D'rok]

I know there's a conspiracy. I don't need anybody to really explain for me how, what, or why. I just know, and nothing can convince me otherwise.

 

[Horatius]

That's why, to me, the Federal Reserve and the U.S. monetary system can only mean one thing: Conspiracy. Conspiracy at the highest levels of government and banking. Collusion and conspiracy to defraud the entire population of the United States. To convert paper notes, bills, and bonds into wealth without it being earned properly.

So, if the entire monetary system over the last hundred years or so has been engineered to "defraud the entire population of the United States", how do explain the fact that our economy produces vastly more real wealth now than it did one hundred years ago?

Bu every measure of real wealth I can think of, we're better off. We have more food, and better food. More clothes, and better clothes. More drugs, and better drugs. More vehicles, and better vehicles. Larger houses, with heating and cooling systems, and clean running water, and refrigerators and ovens and TVs and computers and lawn mowers and snow blowers. We have better educations, and better jobs. We live longer, and live healthier. We have more entertainment options - books, TV, music, movies, video games, sports, restaurants, bars, nightclubs. We can take vacations in far off lands.

Most of these things, if they were available at all, were restricted to the wealthiest people prior to the 20th century. Now they're available to all but the poorest in our society, at least in moderation.

So, where's the "fraud"?

 

[SpringHallConvert]

So, if the entire monetary system over the last hundred years or so has been engineered to "defraud the entire population of the United States", how do explain the fact that our economy produces vastly more real wealth now than it did one hundred years ago?

Major, paradigm-shifting developments in technology have led to monumental jumps in productivity.

These increases in wealth production have taken place in spite of the Federal Reserve and debt-based U.S. monetary system and they allow the this system to harvest more wealth than otherwise would have been possible.

Bu every measure of real wealth I can think of, we're better off. We have more food, and better food. More clothes, and better clothes. More drugs, and better drugs. More vehicles, and better vehicles. Larger houses, with heating and cooling systems, and clean running water, and refrigerators and ovens and TVs and computers and lawn mowers and snow blowers. We have better educations, and better jobs. We live longer, and live healthier. We have more entertainment options - books, TV, music, movies, video games, sports, restaurants, bars, nightclubs. We can take vacations in far off lands.

Technology, technology, technology...

These advances would have taken place regardless.

Most of these things, if they were available at all, were restricted to the wealthiest people prior to the 20th century. Now they're available to all but the poorest in our society, at least in moderation.

So, where's the "fraud"?

The fraud is in forcing the U.S. population to use a monetary system operated by the Federal Reserve where the money needed to facilitate commerce is created and loaned at interest only. Mind you, this isn't gold or commodity money with any real use or value. This is paper money subject to perpetual inflation and other abuses.

Hundreds of billions of dollars per year to private corporations just to use the money the Constitution granted to Congress the authority to create for free. It's a gigantic scam perpetrated by a collusion between government and private corporations.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

The fraud is in forcing the U.S. population to use a monetary system operated by the Federal Reserve where the money needed to facilitate commerce is created and loaned at interest only. Mind you, this isn't gold or commodity money with any real use or value. This is paper money subject to perpetual inflation and other abuses.

Hundreds of billions of dollars per year to private corporations just to use the money the Constitution granted to Congress the authority to create for free. It's a gigantic scam perpetrated by a collusion between government and private corporations.

I have already addressed your fallacious reasoning, why do you continue to lie?

 

[nvidiot]

So you have no evidence, and no evidence we or anyone can provide would convince you that you're wrong?

 

[Hans]

Hmmm, hey fed nut dudes you do realize that nearly every country in the world uses a central bank and fractional banking. You seem to think the Fed is unique in what it does -why do you think that?

Please read about how other nations use fiat money, please, please, your ignorance is painful!

 

[Disbelief]

Major, paradigm-shifting developments in technology have led to monumental jumps in productivity.

These increases in wealth production have taken place in spite of the Federal Reserve and debt-based U.S. monetary system and they allow the this system to harvest more wealth than otherwise would have been possible.



Technology, technology, technology...

These advances would have taken place regardless.



The fraud is in forcing the U.S. population to use a monetary system operated by the Federal Reserve where the money needed to facilitate commerce is created and loaned at interest only. Mind you, this isn't gold or commodity money with any real use or value. This is paper money subject to perpetual inflation and other abuses.

Hundreds of billions of dollars per year to private corporations just to use the money the Constitution granted to Congress the authority to create for free. It's a gigantic scam perpetrated by a collusion between government and private corporations.

How could these technologies have developed if the companies did not have money to invest in R&D? Using a gold standard sets a finite limit on the money pool available, so companies would be more likely to hoard than spend on R&D.

 

[drkitten]

How could these technologies have developed if the companies did not have money to invest in R&D? Using a gold standard sets a finite limit on the money pool available, so companies would be more likely to hoard than spend on R&D.

But companies would have so much more money available if they weren't have to pay all that money to the Evil Druish Reptoids from the Gamma Quadrant, and they'd put that money to work in R&D.

The only reason we haven't yet developed the technology to spin straw into gold is because those self-same Druish Reptoids are suppressing the technology. Once we rediscover that, then we'll be able to use a solid, gold-backed currency while expanding the money supply as much as we like to make sure that economic development remains possible!