PDA

View Full Version : Classic Anti-Federal Reserve Video



FRED
02-11-07, 09:25 AM
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/cUbaCWyxJo0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/cUbaCWyxJo0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

"A broad view of human societies can do nothing but confirm the truth that elites are and have always been an inevitable feature of them all. That there has been an elite in western Europe and North America, made up of a mixture of financiers, industrialists, high-ranking government officials, and the social upper crust; and that this elite has exerted an influence disproportionate to its numbers, should hardly come as a surprise. If all these people were to have been eliminated in one fell swoop, they would simply have been replaced by another elite, differently constituted and differently motivated. What Quigley makes clear is that the elite he describes acted with a curious blend of altruism, self-interest, naivete. Their best-laid plans many times were based on misinformation and came disastrously a-cropper. The impression one gets is more often one of bumbling rather than of sinister genius."

Carroll Quigley's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/094500110X?ie=UTF8&tag=wwwitulipcom-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=094500110X">Tragedy & Hope: A History of the World in Our Time</a><img src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=wwwitulipcom-20&l=as2&o=1&a=094500110X" width="1" height="1" border="0" alt="" style="border:none !important; margin:0px !important;" />

NOTE: These videos are not an editorial statement by iTulip, Inc. iTulip does not, by posting the videos you see here, necessary support the positions taken by those who created the videos or act in them. The purpose of showing these videos is to expose iTulip readers to a range of relevant and significant financial market, economic, and political opinion that is not generally available in the mainstream media.
__________________

grapejelly
02-11-07, 09:57 AM
I enjoyed the video. Pretty much the thesis of Creature of Jekyll Island which I can recommend.

I have never believed that the world is run by a cabal of insiders. But Griffin makes as good a case as anyone by showing how many dots seem to be connected.

I do agree that government force and regulation is and always has been used by private people to enforce cosy monopolies and price fixing. That is just a fact. No reason why that shouldn't be true with money.

It is interesting that the Fed crowded out money directly issued by the government. Fed money funds government debt, so the government pays interest on it. While government issued money has no debt associated with it.

I am a believer that the Internet and the ultimate crash of the current fiat regimes will lead to a much better world of privately issued money backed by goods and services that exist out of savings.

State, local and federal government money will be backed by taxes already assessed and payable and will circulate with other money including eBaypoints, Walmartpoints, YourPoints and MyPoints.

I think banks today are completely unnecessary and are nothing really but hedge funds in disguise but with a zero cost of funds.

In the future we will use our online brokers and allocate our savings into pools invested into debt and equity of solid companies.

Fractional reserve will be history as the people will be so traumatized by the end of debt-backed government monopoly money
that they will finally ban the practice as fraudulent.

Tet
02-11-07, 12:48 PM
"A broad view of human societies can do nothing but confirm the truth that elites are and have always been an inevitable feature of them all. That there has been an elite in western Europe and North America, made up of a mixture of financiers, industrialists, high-ranking government officials, and the social upper crust; and that this elite has exerted an influence disproportionate to its numbers, should hardly come as a surprise. If all these people were to have been eliminated in one fell swoop, they would simply have been replaced by another elite, differently constituted and differently motivated. What Quigley makes clear is that the elite he describes acted with a curious blend of altruism, self-interest, naivete. Their best-laid plans many times were based on misinformation and came disastrously a-cropper. The impression one gets is more often one of bumbling rather than of sinister genius."


One only needs to look at whose portraits are chosen to be on our Federal Reserve Notes to have an understanding of what is going on. It all starts with George Washington who some claim was the richest man in the Colonies at the time. The Federal Reserve makes sure nobody even remembers the first president of the US, John Hancock was president of the continental congress when the Declaration of Indepence is signed, now why isn't Hancock recognized as our first president?

Washington plays a very important role in the creation of the Federal Reserve. The Whiskey Rebellion and Free Trade are very serious threats to the First Bank of the United States. Whiskey is being used as money at the time and Free Trade allows the citizens to export their goods out of New Orleans for a currency of their own choosing, namely Spanish Pesos that have a higher silver content. As President Washington personally commands more troops to squash this rebellion than he had under his command at any time during the War of Independence.

On the $2 bill we find Jefferson, Jefferson is one of the Federal Reserves 2 little jokes on our currency. Jefferson is the father of the Republican/Democratic Party and a stanch Anti-Federalist. Interesting to note that at one time they were one Party, today they certainly are both Federalists. In 1971 the treasury issues $2 Treasury Notes with Jefferson's portrait and Nixon is instantly brought down as president and the Treasury Notes disappear into history.

On the $100 bill we find Franklin, Franklin is instrumental in the creation of the First Bank and the Bank of England's influence over the First Bank. Franklin negotiates the Treaty of Paris and the Treaty of Paris simply takes away the Crown's abilities to tax the United States directly and grants the authority of the Bank of England to tax us through inflation. Interesting to note that Franklin is an Esquire, as an Esquire you are allowed to negotiate the King's business.

On the $10 bill we find Hamilton who is the Godfather of US Central Banking and the Federalist Party itself. Hamilton creates the First Bank of the US. It always amazes me that the Hamilton/Burr duel is regarded as a personnal matter and no mention of the fact that Burr is the founder of Manhattan Bank, a state bank and Hamilton being the Founder of the National Bank. I would think Burr had every right to want to shoot Hamilton.

On the $20 bill we find Jackson who is the Federal Reserves little reminder to how much control they've had. No surprise that Jackson is on a $20 bill since $20 at the time was always an ounce of gold. At tody's price of gold it's easy to see that the Federal Reserve has been able to devalue the d0llar by 97%. One needs to remember that the War of 1812 was because the charter of the First Bank of the US was allowed to expire. British troops march into Washington DC and burn the records of the First Bank and the Treasury which is the whole reason for the war in the first place.
Jackson goes on to kill the Second Bank of the US and refers to the banker interests as a den of vipers. It will require the War Between the States to bring back central banking.

Now we find Lincoln's portrait on a $5 bill and it's certainly no accident that so many traitors to the country get their portraits on our Federal Reserve Notes during this time period. One has to realize that the War Between the States had nothing to do with slavery and everything to do with the Federal System and more importanly how it was paid for. Lincoln is asked before the war if there will be peace and Lincoln simply states how can there be peace who will pay for the Federal Government. At the time the South was providing 85% of all federal revenue from tariffs. Lincoln certainly does piss off the European bankers at the time. The Rothschild's are offering to finance the war with 30% loans and instead of borrowing the money Lincoln simply has the treasury issue $400 million of Greenbacks. The Secret Service gets created during this period not to protect the President but to protect the nations currency. The Bank of England has counterfeited every other Greenback in circulation.

Lincoln states during the war that he has the Confederate Troops in front of him and the Bankers behind him and it's the Bankers he fears most. Britain reinforces Canada with over 10K troops and France invades Mexico at the time. Lincoln is surrounded, Czar Alexander sends several of his naval fleet to San Francisco and New York harbors to protect the US from invasion. The US will purchase Alaska from Russia as payment for this service. Lincoln kills the free press, imprisons opponents with no charges and pretty much kills the constitution and the Republic to create the Federal System we find ourselves indebted to today.

Easy to see how Grant gets himself on the $50 bill, he's an alcoholic bumbler who is easily manipulated just like Yelstin was for Russia. Before the war the US has over 10K different currencies and after the war there is only one. Grant makes sure that this is the system that stays in place after the war.

The $10,000 bill has Salom P. Chase who is the father of the National Banking act and shares Chase Manhattan's name. The National Banking Act gives us one currency. Note that three portraits Lincoln, Grant and Chase come from this time period.

The $500 bill has McKinley's portrait, McKinley is known as the father of US imperialism. McKinley leads the country in the war against Spain and expands the US reach around the world.

Woodrow Wilson gets his portrait on the $100,000 bill, of course it's Wilson who allows in the middle of the night the creation of the Federal Reserve itself in 1913.

Now we simply wait for the US Treasury to finally issue real money into the economy like it has done 56 times in our nations history before. Looks like the world is getting pretty fed up with the Bank of England still telling everyone what to do.

Sapiens
02-11-07, 02:06 PM
Tet, excellent post!

DemonD
02-12-07, 04:08 AM
emphasis added


Now we find Lincoln's portrait on a $5 bill and it's certainly no accident that so many traitors to the country get their portraits on our Federal Reserve Notes during this time period. One has to realize that the War Between the States had nothing to do with slavery and everything to do with the Federal System and more importanly how it was paid for. Lincoln is asked before the war if there will be peace and Lincoln simply states how can there be peace who will pay for the Federal Government. At the time the South was providing 85% of all federal revenue from tariffs. Lincoln certainly does piss off the European bankers at the time. The Rothschild's are offering to finance the war with 30% loans and instead of borrowing the money Lincoln simply has the treasury issue $400 million of Greenbacks. The Secret Service gets created during this period not to protect the President but to protect the nations currency. The Bank of England has counterfeited every other Greenback in circulation.

Source?

Tet
02-12-07, 12:03 PM
emphasis added

One has to realize that the War Between the States had nothing to do with slavery and everything to do with the Federal System and more importanly how it was paid for.
Source?

Quote from Lincoln before the war.

Asked Of Abraham Lincoln...
"Why not let the South go in peace?"
Response Of Abraham Lincoln...
"I can't let them go. Who would pay for the government?"
http://www.rulen.com/partisan/quotes.htm

European Views of the War To Prevent Southern Independence
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo119.html

Thanks to the protectionist tariff, Dickens wrote, "Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. . . . The quarrel between the North and South is . . . solely a fiscal quarrel." Many other European journals repeated this theme, as Adams shows. The Quarterly Review called the Morrill Tariff "a revolting tribute" to Northern businessmen paid by southerners who "had been groaning for years under the crushing bondage of Northern protectionists." (Dickens entertainingly described Lincoln as "a bit of a country bumpkin" according to Europeans who had met him).


Lincoln was nothing other than a tyrant, until the US can at least make peace (which we've never done) with the south, how can we expect to have peace with the rest of the world? Keep in mind we've never signed a peace treaty with North Korea either, now how do we expect North Korea to react any differently with the threat of war hanging over their heads for the last fifty years? North Korea knows first hand that their last war with us killed about 30% of their total population. It's been proved that invasions are prevented through deterence and North Korea's entire economy has to be dedicated to this deterence to counter a threat from a country that spends $700 billion on their military.

Finster
02-15-07, 11:48 AM
Quote from Lincoln before the war.

Asked Of Abraham Lincoln...
"Why not let the South go in peace?"
Response Of Abraham Lincoln...
"I can't let them go. Who would pay for the government?"
http://www.rulen.com/partisan/quotes.htm

European Views of the War To Prevent Southern Independence
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo119.html

Thanks to the protectionist tariff, Dickens wrote, "Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. . . . The quarrel between the North and South is . . . solely a fiscal quarrel." Many other European journals repeated this theme, as Adams shows. The Quarterly Review called the Morrill Tariff "a revolting tribute" to Northern businessmen paid by southerners who "had been groaning for years under the crushing bondage of Northern protectionists." (Dickens entertainingly described Lincoln as "a bit of a country bumpkin" according to Europeans who had met him).


Lincoln was nothing other than a tyrant, until the US can at least make peace (which we've never done) with the south, how can we expect to have peace with the rest of the world? Keep in mind we've never signed a peace treaty with North Korea either, now how do we expect North Korea to react any differently with the threat of war hanging over their heads for the last fifty years? North Korea knows first hand that their last war with us killed about 30% of their total population. It's been proved that invasions are prevented through deterence and North Korea's entire economy has to be dedicated to this deterence to counter a threat from a country that spends $700 billion on their military.

There are at least two excellent books on this subject. The Real Lincoln by Thomas Dilorenzo and When In The Course Of Human Events by Charles Adams.

Lincoln's agenda was to implement Henry Clay's "American System", and "freeing the slaves" was its marketing angle. Few people know that even the vaunted Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves only in those states that were in rebellion, and then only years after the war started. It was part of a war strategy to rescue the Union from its losing position, and it was invaluable in helping to prevent Europe from coming to the aid of the South. Slavery was already on its way out, and Europe had just eliminated it without spilling blood.

The net result of the Civil War was the conquest of the States by the Federal government. It established federal hegemony through military force. It ended government by consent of the governed.

...

Finster
02-15-07, 11:51 AM
Oh, BAAAAARRRT!!!

You are being paged!!!

;)

Tet
02-15-07, 02:26 PM
There are at least two excellent books on this subject. The Real Lincoln by Thomas Dilorenzo and When In The Course Of Human Events by Charles Adams.
Lincoln Unmasked would be another good book.


Lincoln's agenda was to implement Henry Clay's "American System", and "freeing the slaves" was its marketing angle.
Yep and it helped stir up some problems in the south, who Lincoln happened to be at war with at the time.

Few people know that even the vaunted Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves only in those states that were in rebellion, and then only years after the war started.
When they asked President Grant about the Civil War being about freeing slaves he stated that had he known that he would have fought on the other side. His wife's family owned slaves.

It was part of a war strategy to rescue the Union from it's losing position, and it was invaluable in helping to prevent Europe from coming to the aid of the South.
Interesting to note that Russia has their navy parked in New York and San Francisco during this time period. Without the War Between the States I doubt seriously there ever is a Federal Reserve.

Slavery was already on its way out, and Europe had just eliminated it without spilling blood.
Anti-slavery platforms were very big in the south, if I remember correctly President Davis was anti-slavery.


The net result of the Civil War was the conquest of the States by the Federal government. It established federal hegemony through military force. It ended government by consent of the governed.
The final nail in the Republics coffin.

bart
02-15-07, 08:42 PM
Oh, BAAAAARRRT!!!

You are being paged!!!

;)

Yo! ;)

Although I think some of the points made above are too simplistic, one example being apparently assigning 100% of the Civil War cause to the financial/banking cartel, they're mostly just relatively minor quibbles.

I've been accused many times of having the volume up too far on the Fed and banksters myself (very little here though), but the basic point that the Fed and banksters are amongst the top three causes for the mess we're in now is true.

Tet
02-16-07, 12:32 AM
Yo! ;)

Although I think some of the points made above are too simplistic, one example being apparently assigning 100% of the Civil War cause to the financial/banking cartel, they're mostly just relatively minor quibbles.

I've been accused many times of having the volume up too far on the Fed and banksters myself (very little here though), but the basic point that the Fed and banksters are amongst the top three causes for the mess we're in now is true.
In 1857 we have a bankster inspired Panic and before 1863 the US had over 10K different currencies, after there was only one. Que Bono? Who Profits, what do you know it was the banksters.

bart
02-16-07, 01:14 AM
In 1857 we have a bankster inspired Panic and before 1863 the US had over 10K different currencies, after there was only one. Que Bono? Who Profits, what do you know it was the banksters.

Duh, what a revelation. /sarcasm

Please give it up, we're very close to on the same side.

DemonD
02-16-07, 04:38 AM
Thanks to the protectionist tariff, Dickens wrote, "Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. . . . The quarrel between the North and South is . . . solely a fiscal quarrel." Many other European journals repeated this theme, as Adams shows.

Lincoln was nothing other than a tyrant, until the US can at least make peace (which we've never done) with the south, how can we expect to have peace with the rest of the world?

I cut out all the superfluous arguments.

To the first point, "solely a fiscal quarrel." I agree. Most historians will tell you that the Civil War occurred because of financial reasons. The difference being that the South's economy was "financed" on the backs of men and women of African descent.

To the second point (Lincoln was a tyrant), is that why Congress almost unanimously authorized the Civil War? Did Lincoln push through laws where ownership of other human beings was legal, and that slaves counted as 3/5th's a person? Lincoln's own personal life and writings would indicate that he was personally against slavery, so that even though the war was for financial reasons, his personal convictions were abolitionist in nature.

And Finster, I am well aware he "emancipated" the slaves well into the war and only in rebel states, and that he partly used that as marketing. But what president doesn't do heavy marketing for wars they involved themselves in? Woodrow Wilson, FDR, John F. Kennedy (for Vietnam), GHW Bush, and now W.

And finally, while there are some who argue that "slavery was on it's way out," this was NOT the case in the south.

until the US can at least make peace (which we've never done) with the south, how can we expect to have peace with the rest of the world?

There are two ways to defeat an individual extremist. Raise the standard of living of the extreme population by educational programs, increasing career opportunities, and giving them a fair shake at life, and you probably take the percentage of extremists down so that any individual person is likely to make something of himself other than being a hate-mongering slave-owning or homicide bombing killer. The other way is to kill them. While the "red" states certainly have the good ol' boy thing going for them, there are very very large percentages of people who are pro choice, liberal, John Kerry (ew) voting people. W didn't get 70% of votes in every southern state, and last I checked the former slave states send representatives to Washington every year.

Also, to the point about federal hegemony. The civil war didn't need to happen for that to happen. States have been losing rights ever since the Revolutionary War ended. Think we could have had a draft in WWI and WWII without the Civil War? Of course we would have.

Now that I'm done being logical and putting my thoughts in a semi-neutral debate tone, I'm (just warning you) going to get a bit personal. I find many of the thoughts in this thread to be highly offensive, at the very least revisionist and at the very worst outright twisted lies that make no sense. I do not claim to know every detail of Lincoln's life, by my own family has a history with the USA, which is GREAT country, and I am privy (solely by family history) to a lot of information that is easily learned by any book. If you want to talk about a TYRANT, then you should talk about William T. Sherman. That man was a bastard. But highly effective - as many Tyrants are when put into situations where being a Tyrant is good for a short period of time. (See also: Alexander the Great, Atilla the Hun, Ghengis Khan, Napoleon, etc.)

Further, Tet, your "sources" are first blatantly biased and secondly self-serving in their own rights. Of course Europe would want a split USA - they would be able to play two sovereign nations off each other, and maybe even conquer one of them in another war. And the Missouri Partisan Ranger website of famous quotes? Give me a break. At least use wikipedia or something that has at least some kind of standard put on it. Or how about a real book?

While I appreciate different outlooks on things as they add to my further understanding of the world, revisionist history does nothing but make issues foggy and create issues that were not there. Maybe it wasn't 10 million Russians killed by Stalin? Maybe it wasn't 6 million Jews? Maybe the gypsies never really existed? Maybe Adolf Hitler was really onto something, and he wasn't just a murderous sociopath with a way with audiences? Maybe you can win a land war in Asia... hell, alex the great succeeded right? You can also find outlier sources that would back up all these statements... and I would not be able to lose any more respect for you because being a revisionist in that matter I've already put you in the "will bend history any way he sees fit to his agenda" category.

pssst, tet. I've got it on good authority the mason's are hiding the body of mary magdalene in a church in england!

Tet
02-16-07, 12:24 PM
I cut out all the superfluous arguments.

To the first point, "solely a fiscal quarrel." I agree. Most historians will tell you that the Civil War occurred because of financial reasons. The difference being that the South's economy was "financed" on the backs of men and women of African descent.
By this same token then, 85% of the entire country was "financed" on the backs of slaves then wasn't it? This is the portion of the federal government that the Red State South financed, 85% in the form of tariffs. If this is the shame you want to dish out then the North equally if not more so benefited off the backs of slaves. How about this, you pay for 85% of everything I spend and we see how long it takes you to turn into a rebel.

To the second point (Lincoln was a tyrant), is that why Congress almost unanimously authorized the Civil War?
One the south had voted to no longer be governed by the north, imposing your will over the majority is a form of tyrany is it not? Lincoln invaded the south without the consent of congress as much as you would like to believe differently. Lincoln suspends the writ of habeas corpus without congressional approval, he imprisons any opposition, do you have any idea what a Copper Head is? Lincoln censored all newspaper and telegraph communication; nationalized the railroads; created three new states without the consent of the citizens of those states in order to artificially inflate the Republican Party’s electoral vote; ordered Federal troops to interfere with Northern elections to assure Republican Party victories; deported Ohio Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham for opposing his domestic policies (especially protectionist tariffs and income taxation) on the floor of the House of Representatives; confiscated private property, including firearms, in violation of the Second Amendment; and effectively gutted the Tenth and Ninth Amendments as well. Lincoln was a tyrant by all definitions.



Did Lincoln push through laws where ownership of other human beings was legal, and that slaves counted as 3/5th's a person? Lincoln's own personal life and writings would indicate that he was personally against slavery, so that even though the war was for financial reasons, his personal convictions were abolitionist in nature.
Now this is when I don't have to provide links and can refer to a book of my own hiden family history of being a part of the underground railroad. Read from any abolishionist of the time period and none of them agree with your contention that Lincoln was against slavery.



And finally, while there are some who argue that "slavery was on it's way out," this was NOT the case in the south.
Links?? Many people were against slavery in the south.


There are two ways to defeat an individual extremist. Raise the standard of living of the extreme population by educational programs, increasing career opportunities, and giving them a fair shake at life, and you probably take the percentage of extremists down so that any individual person is likely to make something of himself other than being a hate-mongering slave-owning or homicide bombing killer. The other way is to kill them. While the "red" states certainly have the good ol' boy thing going for them, there are very very large percentages of people who are pro choice, liberal, John Kerry (ew) voting people. W didn't get 70% of votes in every southern state, and last I checked the former slave states send representatives to Washington every year.
Being an occupying power doesn't ever seem to work out in the long run, TWT if that's changed.


Also, to the point about federal hegemony. The civil war didn't need to happen for that to happen. States have been losing rights ever since the Revolutionary War ended. Think we could have had a draft in WWI and WWII without the Civil War? Of course we would have.
It certainly came in handy though. :D


Now that I'm done being logical and putting my thoughts in a semi-neutral debate tone, I'm (just warning you) going to get a bit personal. I find many of the thoughts in this thread to be highly offensive, at the very least revisionist and at the very worst outright twisted lies that make no sense. I do not claim to know every detail of Lincoln's life, by my own family has a history with the USA, which is GREAT country, and I am privy (solely by family history) to a lot of information that is easily learned by any book. If you want to talk about a TYRANT, then you should talk about William T. Sherman. That man was a bastard. But highly effective - as many Tyrants are when put into situations where being a Tyrant is good for a short period of time. (See also: Alexander the Great, Atilla the Hun, Ghengis Khan, Napoleon, etc.)
Certainly many tyrants in history, by comparison Lincoln fits the bill


Further, Tet, your "sources" are first blatantly biased and secondly self-serving in their own rights. Of course Europe would want a split USA - they would be able to play two sovereign nations off each other, and maybe even conquer one of them in another war. And the Missouri Partisan Ranger website of famous quotes? Give me a break. At least use wikipedia or something that has at least some kind of standard put on it. Or how about a real book?
I see you don't have to provide links or sources, the quotes can be verified by many sources. I would think Europe has a better view of the War Between the States since they weren't a part of it.


While I appreciate different outlooks on things as they add to my further understanding of the world, revisionist history does nothing but make issues foggy and create issues that were not there. Maybe it wasn't 10 million Russians killed by Stalin? Maybe it wasn't 6 million Jews? Maybe the gypsies never really existed? Maybe Adolf Hitler was really onto something, and he wasn't just a murderous sociopath with a way with audiences? Maybe you can win a land war in Asia... hell, alex the great succeeded right? You can also find outlier sources that would back up all these statements... and I would not be able to lose any more respect for you because being a revisionist in that matter I've already put you in the "will bend history any way he sees fit to his agenda" category.
Certainly taking a second look at Lincoln does open up a huge can of worms for much of history. I understand your concern.


pssst, tet. I've got it on good authority the mason's are hiding the body of mary magdalene in a church in england!
Pssst, demondd, good to know my views somehow are OK to be viewed as personal attacks, meanwhile your view of history is not to be questioned. Got it.

Finster
02-16-07, 01:31 PM
I've been accused many times of having the volume up too far on the Fed and banksters myself (very little here though), but the basic point that the Fed and banksters are amongst the top three causes for the mess we're in now is true.

I'm down with that. I'm on record in these pages as putting it in the top two causes insofar as having blamed the current account deficit on bad monetary policy and tax policy. Just this week we were treated to the spectacle of the Fed Chairman himself bemoaning the low savings rates that naturally result from the low real interest rates that his own institution has fostered. Make it fruitless to save, and then whine about people failing to do so?

Sounds like recipe tailor-made to produce a mess!

bart
02-16-07, 01:56 PM
I'm down with that. I'm on record in these pages as putting it in the top two causes insofar as having blamed the current account deficit on bad monetary policy and tax policy. Just this week we were treated to the spectacle of the Fed Chairman himself bemoaning the low savings rates that naturally result from the low real interest rates that his own institution has fostered. Make it fruitless to save, and then whine about people failing to do so?

Sounds like recipe tailor-made to produce a mess!


Ain't it a b*tch... *sigh*

Maybe we should take up a collection for the FOMC for some cheese to go along with that whine? ;)

DemonD
02-16-07, 05:04 PM
Pssst, demondd, good to know my views somehow are OK to be viewed as personal attacks, meanwhile your view of history is not to be questioned. Got it.

Jews consider history revisionists of WWII as personally attacking them, and rightly so.

I could argue points against you but it's an internet message board and I'm not going to take the time because it won't change anything. If we were meeting on a nationally debated stage, I would go to an actual library, see who the authorities are on history, and use generally accepted historical standards in picking my information.

As far as Lincoln being abolitionist, and to basically completely disprove everything you are saying, here is a link to the text of the Lincoln-Douglas debates. I remind you this is before Lincoln ever even ran for president, let alone had his plans for world domination to be the "tyrant" as you so-called describe him:

http://www.nps.gov/archive/liho/debates.htm

Here are a couple of quotes, right from the source:

"I think, and shall try to show, that it is wrong; wrong in its direct effect, letting slavery into Kansas and Nebraska-and wrong in its prospective principle, allowing it to spread to every other part of the wide world, where men can be found inclined to take it."

"This declared indifference, but, as I must think, covert real zeal for the spread of slavery, I cannot but hate. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world-enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites-causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty-criticizing the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest."

"But all this, to my judgment, furnishes no more excuse for permitting slavery to go into our own free territory, than it would for reviving the African slave-trade by law. The law which forbids the bringing of slaves from Africa, and that which has so long forbid the taking of them to Nebraska, can hardly be distinguished on any moral principle; and the repeal of the former could find quite as plausible excuses as that of the latter."

Tet
02-16-07, 08:11 PM
Jews consider history revisionists of WWII as personally attacking them, and rightly so.
Throwing people in prison for free speech looks more like an attack on them, instead of an attack on you. That's my personnal view shared by many people. Nobody throws people in prison for denying Jesus, but being a revisionist gets you thrown in the slammer, seems pretty screwed up to me. I'm sure the truth would stand up to them, so why not let them have their say.


I could argue points against you but it's an internet message board and I'm not going to take the time because it won't change anything. If we were meeting on a nationally debated stage, I would go to an actual library, see who the authorities are on history, and use generally accepted historical standards in picking my information.
I'm not sure what you mean other than from this it sounds like you haven't read up on the War Between the States very much.


As far as Lincoln being abolitionist, and to basically completely disprove everything you are saying, here is a link to the text of the Lincoln-Douglas debates. I remind you this is before Lincoln ever even ran for president, let alone had his plans for world domination to be the "tyrant" as you so-called describe him:

http://www.nps.gov/archive/liho/debates.htm

Here are a couple of quotes, right from the source:

"I think, and shall try to show, that it is wrong; wrong in its direct effect, letting slavery into Kansas and Nebraska-and wrong in its prospective principle, allowing it to spread to every other part of the wide world, where men can be found inclined to take it."

"This declared indifference, but, as I must think, covert real zeal for the spread of slavery, I cannot but hate. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world-enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites-causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty-criticizing the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest."

"But all this, to my judgment, furnishes no more excuse for permitting slavery to go into our own free territory, than it would for reviving the African slave-trade by law. The law which forbids the bringing of slaves from Africa, and that which has so long forbid the taking of them to Nebraska, can hardly be distinguished on any moral principle; and the repeal of the former could find quite as plausible excuses as that of the latter."
Reading through the debate further you find this from Lincoln.
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

Having an understanding of democrat and republican for the time period would be helpful. There are two huge issues during the time period. Dred Scott and the Nebraska Act, both are used by Lincoln as a way to play on northern fears of the South spreading slavery into the north and into Free Territories where Slavery had been voted down. This is what Lincoln is playing on in the debate, the fear that northerners had of blacks and blacks along with slavery being allowed into the north.

Sending escaped slaves back to the south was one thing Lincoln supported, this is my point about why Lincoln is no friend of the abolishsionists. Now Dred Scott and the Nebraska Act allow a southern slave owner to take his slaves to free states or free territories and have them remain slaves. Lincoln makes the point that this is wrong, rightfully so, because what right does the slave owner have to go to another state and break their laws. Lincoln now infers that the Constitution has been abandoned and those states that formally viewed themselves as free states no longer were. I realize this escapes you but Lincoln is argueing his case that slavery is spreading to the north, not that Lincoln is going to do away with slavery in the south.

Finster
02-18-07, 12:27 PM
The net result of the Civil War was the conquest of the States by the Federal government. It established federal hegemony through military force. It ended government by consent of the governed.

The final nail in the Republics coffin.

It was certainly the beginning of the end. It was the beginning in the sense that it laid the predicate for several notable decrements in our national health.

Each built upon the ones preceding it:

1913 - Institution of a national central bank.

1913 - Institution of a national income tax.

1914-1917 - World War I and Wilson's imperial drive to "make the world safe for democracy" (facilitated by the first two)

1933 - FDR's abrogation of the gold standard for Americans and confiscation of gold.

1971 - Nixon's closing of the gold window ... finished what Roosevelt started in 1933.

Tet
02-18-07, 01:01 PM
It was certainly the beginning of the end. It was the beginning in the sense that it laid the predicate for several notable decrements in our national health.

Each built upon the ones preceding it:

1913 - Institution of a national central bank.

1913 - Institution of a national income tax.

1914-1917 - World War I and Wilson's imperial drive to "make the world safe for democracy" (facilitated by the first two)

1933 - FDR's abrogation of the gold standard for Americans and confiscation of gold.

1971 - Nixon's closing of the gold window ... finished what Roosevelt started in 1933.

Globally this 1860's - 1870's time period is very interesting. I think this period might mark the high water level of the British Empire, I notice the brits were never embarassed to use the word Empire. Britian has a victory in the Crimean War, effectively denying Russia their warm water port. Trade between Russia and the US up until this time period was booming and afterwards it drops to a trickle. I believe even today the Anglo Empire does everything it can to keep Russia from entering the world stage. I think 1870 another Empire begins with the introduction of the Japanese Yen and Japan will be used to neutralize Russia as well. The 1870's also introduce the Opium Wars to China and China is of course destroyed as a threat to the British Empire from this.

All these events are playing out again today. Afghanistan War brings us world record levels of opium production. Poland, Ukraine and Georgia deny Russian goods to sell in different currencies. Iraq seems to be another extention of the Crimean War. Maybe history does repeat.

bart
02-18-07, 01:33 PM
Globally this 1860's - 1870's time period is very interesting. I think this period might mark the high water level of the British Empire, I notice the brits were never embarrassed to use the word Empire.
...



Indeed and agreed.



http://www.nowandfutures.com/download/BritishPound1791-2004.png



http://www.nowandfutures.com/download/gold_pound1257-1945.png

Finster
02-18-07, 05:08 PM
Indeed and agreed.

[chart]

http://www.nowandfutures.com/download/BritishPound1791-2004.png

And consider that during the 1970's that drop of the GBP compared to the USD occured at a time of especially steep inflationary depreciation of the USD iself. Our inflation problem was bad enough, theirs even worse.

Course they had a central bank, too ...

http://users.zoominternet.net/~fwuthering/FFF/FDIS.png

bart
02-19-07, 11:35 AM
And consider that during the 1970's that drop of the GBP compared to the USD occured at a time of especially steep inflationary depreciation of the USD iself. Our inflation problem was bad enough, theirs even worse.

Course they had a central bank, too ...



Ir must be a coincidence about both having central banks and people who knew how to use them... ;)

The slope of that FDI chart sure could be a great design for a water slide or ski slope... is that what they mean about the slippery slope of inflation? ;)