do you know what the federal reserve is?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=SK in CV]

I don’t agree with Allan on much politically, but on this we do agree. I’m quite sure I didn’t say (nor do I believe) that we should “live with it”. I’m all in favor of the fed being audited regularly, and substantially more oversight than currently exists. The fed was created by congress, under it’s power of appointment granted in Section 1 of the constitution. It can just as easily amend the mechanism under which it was created.

The problem is not ownership. The problem is it’s lack of transparency in operation.[/quote]

SK: Given that we’re both former accountants (I was not a CPA, however), I’d frame my response within that context. I’m less worried about the Fed’s ownership, than their ability to perform as a “going concern”. We’ve seen a rapid ramp up in their balance sheet, specifically massive acquisition of assets that are, in my opinion, toxic, or at a minimum, difficult to value/sell (i.e. highly illiquid).

While the Fed is not Bear Stearns, nor is it Lehman Bros., it would still be problematic to unload these various assets in a timely fashion, and it would also be difficult to unload them in such a way as to return maximum value to the US taxpayers, who financed their acquisition in the first place.

I don’t see a conspiracy, per se, but I do see a huge “shadow” buyout, wherein the Fed became a purchaser of last resort in order to avoid a huge and disorderly unwinding. In that regard, I would like to see the Fed audited, and I’d love to see an opinion letter by a wholly objective third-party auditor (if one still exists) as to the estimated value of the Fed’s balance sheet, and both Assets and Liabilities. I think this document would be a whole helluva lot more interesting than the Fed’s ownership.

[investor]

OK. Let’s be civil here. I’ll try and give another example of how the money travels in our central banking system. (By the way, the best method of figuring out what is happening, especially in corroption,is to follow the money). Congress wants to spend more than it takes in in taxes. This is called defecit spending. The logical way to do this is to have congress take dollars money from the treasury and spend it. Doesn’t happen that way. First, congress auctions off treasury bonds to anyone who wants it using existing money. Bonds not sold this way are sold to the fed. The money the fed uses to buy the bonds is taken from the treasury and given to the federal reserve (at no charge) which then sells the money back to congress and charges us interest on it as long as the debt/bond isn’t repaid. This is what happens in a failed treasury bond auction where foreign governments don’t want our debt from defecit spending. (A great way to judge decreasing foreign money interest in dollar denominated debt is in watching how much of the treasury bond sales are to the fed and not to existing money sources.) If it doesn’t bother you that the fed is making money off of selling us our own money, fine. It bothers me to have such an unecessary expense. Not to mention the political power that holding onto US bonds brings.
The creature book says that the central banks desire to control the whole worlds money supply so it can make even more money off of us. This is the motive behind bankrupting the US dollar, which is the main currency stopping a one world money. Spend it untill no-one wants it and it becomes worthless. That does sound like a conspiracy theory but one that I find hard to poke holes in. I hope that this one example helps. There are many more ways that the US dollar finds its way out of the fed and into other countries. Read this book as well as others.

[investor]

OK. Let’s be civil here. I’ll try and give another example of how the money travels in our central banking system. (By the way, the best method of figuring out what is happening, especially in corroption,is to follow the money). Congress wants to spend more than it takes in in taxes. This is called defecit spending. The logical way to do this is to have congress take dollars money from the treasury and spend it. Doesn’t happen that way. First, congress auctions off treasury bonds to anyone who wants it using existing money. Bonds not sold this way are sold to the fed. The money the fed uses to buy the bonds is taken from the treasury and given to the federal reserve (at no charge) which then sells the money back to congress and charges us interest on it as long as the debt/bond isn’t repaid. This is what happens in a failed treasury bond auction where foreign governments don’t want our debt from defecit spending. (A great way to judge decreasing foreign money interest in dollar denominated debt is in watching how much of the treasury bond sales are to the fed and not to existing money sources.) If it doesn’t bother you that the fed is making money off of selling us our own money, fine. It bothers me to have such an unecessary expense. Not to mention the political power that holding onto US bonds brings.
The creature book says that the central banks desire to control the whole worlds money supply so it can make even more money off of us. This is the motive behind bankrupting the US dollar, which is the main currency stopping a one world money. Spend it untill no-one wants it and it becomes worthless. That does sound like a conspiracy theory but one that I find hard to poke holes in. I hope that this one example helps. There are many more ways that the US dollar finds its way out of the fed and into other countries. Read this book as well as others.

[investor]

OK. Let’s be civil here. I’ll try and give another example of how the money travels in our central banking system. (By the way, the best method of figuring out what is happening, especially in corroption,is to follow the money). Congress wants to spend more than it takes in in taxes. This is called defecit spending. The logical way to do this is to have congress take dollars money from the treasury and spend it. Doesn’t happen that way. First, congress auctions off treasury bonds to anyone who wants it using existing money. Bonds not sold this way are sold to the fed. The money the fed uses to buy the bonds is taken from the treasury and given to the federal reserve (at no charge) which then sells the money back to congress and charges us interest on it as long as the debt/bond isn’t repaid. This is what happens in a failed treasury bond auction where foreign governments don’t want our debt from defecit spending. (A great way to judge decreasing foreign money interest in dollar denominated debt is in watching how much of the treasury bond sales are to the fed and not to existing money sources.) If it doesn’t bother you that the fed is making money off of selling us our own money, fine. It bothers me to have such an unecessary expense. Not to mention the political power that holding onto US bonds brings.
The creature book says that the central banks desire to control the whole worlds money supply so it can make even more money off of us. This is the motive behind bankrupting the US dollar, which is the main currency stopping a one world money. Spend it untill no-one wants it and it becomes worthless. That does sound like a conspiracy theory but one that I find hard to poke holes in. I hope that this one example helps. There are many more ways that the US dollar finds its way out of the fed and into other countries. Read this book as well as others.

[investor]

OK. Let’s be civil here. I’ll try and give another example of how the money travels in our central banking system. (By the way, the best method of figuring out what is happening, especially in corroption,is to follow the money). Congress wants to spend more than it takes in in taxes. This is called defecit spending. The logical way to do this is to have congress take dollars money from the treasury and spend it. Doesn’t happen that way. First, congress auctions off treasury bonds to anyone who wants it using existing money. Bonds not sold this way are sold to the fed. The money the fed uses to buy the bonds is taken from the treasury and given to the federal reserve (at no charge) which then sells the money back to congress and charges us interest on it as long as the debt/bond isn’t repaid. This is what happens in a failed treasury bond auction where foreign governments don’t want our debt from defecit spending. (A great way to judge decreasing foreign money interest in dollar denominated debt is in watching how much of the treasury bond sales are to the fed and not to existing money sources.) If it doesn’t bother you that the fed is making money off of selling us our own money, fine. It bothers me to have such an unecessary expense. Not to mention the political power that holding onto US bonds brings.
The creature book says that the central banks desire to control the whole worlds money supply so it can make even more money off of us. This is the motive behind bankrupting the US dollar, which is the main currency stopping a one world money. Spend it untill no-one wants it and it becomes worthless. That does sound like a conspiracy theory but one that I find hard to poke holes in. I hope that this one example helps. There are many more ways that the US dollar finds its way out of the fed and into other countries. Read this book as well as others.

[investor]

OK. Let’s be civil here. I’ll try and give another example of how the money travels in our central banking system. (By the way, the best method of figuring out what is happening, especially in corroption,is to follow the money). Congress wants to spend more than it takes in in taxes. This is called defecit spending. The logical way to do this is to have congress take dollars money from the treasury and spend it. Doesn’t happen that way. First, congress auctions off treasury bonds to anyone who wants it using existing money. Bonds not sold this way are sold to the fed. The money the fed uses to buy the bonds is taken from the treasury and given to the federal reserve (at no charge) which then sells the money back to congress and charges us interest on it as long as the debt/bond isn’t repaid. This is what happens in a failed treasury bond auction where foreign governments don’t want our debt from defecit spending. (A great way to judge decreasing foreign money interest in dollar denominated debt is in watching how much of the treasury bond sales are to the fed and not to existing money sources.) If it doesn’t bother you that the fed is making money off of selling us our own money, fine. It bothers me to have such an unecessary expense. Not to mention the political power that holding onto US bonds brings.
The creature book says that the central banks desire to control the whole worlds money supply so it can make even more money off of us. This is the motive behind bankrupting the US dollar, which is the main currency stopping a one world money. Spend it untill no-one wants it and it becomes worthless. That does sound like a conspiracy theory but one that I find hard to poke holes in. I hope that this one example helps. There are many more ways that the US dollar finds its way out of the fed and into other countries. Read this book as well as others.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=aldante]I don’t understand. Are you saying that Iran/Contra was not a conspiracy?

Here is a couple of definitions I think apply:

a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act
a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot)

Am I missing something? Or is it my punch?[/quote]

I’m saying that Iran-Contra has as much to do with this as Area 51/Roswell do.

What illegal and unlawful acts are you referring to? If the Fed is up to something illegal and unlawful, what is it?

More to the point, if you’re asserting that there are “no facts” to go on, how are you alleging your purported conspiracy in the first place?

And, I have nothing against your punch. I only wish you would share your punch with the rest of us.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=aldante]I don’t understand. Are you saying that Iran/Contra was not a conspiracy?

Here is a couple of definitions I think apply:

a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act
a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot)

Am I missing something? Or is it my punch?[/quote]

I’m saying that Iran-Contra has as much to do with this as Area 51/Roswell do.

What illegal and unlawful acts are you referring to? If the Fed is up to something illegal and unlawful, what is it?

More to the point, if you’re asserting that there are “no facts” to go on, how are you alleging your purported conspiracy in the first place?

And, I have nothing against your punch. I only wish you would share your punch with the rest of us.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=aldante]I don’t understand. Are you saying that Iran/Contra was not a conspiracy?

Here is a couple of definitions I think apply:

a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act
a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot)

Am I missing something? Or is it my punch?[/quote]

I’m saying that Iran-Contra has as much to do with this as Area 51/Roswell do.

What illegal and unlawful acts are you referring to? If the Fed is up to something illegal and unlawful, what is it?

More to the point, if you’re asserting that there are “no facts” to go on, how are you alleging your purported conspiracy in the first place?

And, I have nothing against your punch. I only wish you would share your punch with the rest of us.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=aldante]I don’t understand. Are you saying that Iran/Contra was not a conspiracy?

Here is a couple of definitions I think apply:

a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act
a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot)

Am I missing something? Or is it my punch?[/quote]

I’m saying that Iran-Contra has as much to do with this as Area 51/Roswell do.

What illegal and unlawful acts are you referring to? If the Fed is up to something illegal and unlawful, what is it?

More to the point, if you’re asserting that there are “no facts” to go on, how are you alleging your purported conspiracy in the first place?

And, I have nothing against your punch. I only wish you would share your punch with the rest of us.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=aldante]I don’t understand. Are you saying that Iran/Contra was not a conspiracy?

Here is a couple of definitions I think apply:

a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act
a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot)

Am I missing something? Or is it my punch?[/quote]

I’m saying that Iran-Contra has as much to do with this as Area 51/Roswell do.

What illegal and unlawful acts are you referring to? If the Fed is up to something illegal and unlawful, what is it?

More to the point, if you’re asserting that there are “no facts” to go on, how are you alleging your purported conspiracy in the first place?

And, I have nothing against your punch. I only wish you would share your punch with the rest of us.

[davelj]

[quote=investor]Read this book as well as others.[/quote]

How about I take your didactically-presented advice on books I should be reading as soon as you adequately re-explain this quote from your original post:

“The federal reserve is a private company, whose ownership is mostly unknown but I suspect are the wealthiest people on earth…”

I assume you are now backing away from this ridiculous claim and are instead targeting other potential tangents related to the Federal Reserve.

Whenever I see a post that says anything like, “Read this book as well as others,” (“Yes sir, Professor!! It’s back to the library for me!”) I assume the person writing it is interested in “teaching” as opposed to a two-way dialogue. And you’ll have to pardon me if I find it difficult to engage in a dialogue regarding the Fed with someone who “suspects” that the Fed is owned by “the wealthiest people on earth.”

[davelj]

[quote=investor]Read this book as well as others.[/quote]

How about I take your didactically-presented advice on books I should be reading as soon as you adequately re-explain this quote from your original post:

“The federal reserve is a private company, whose ownership is mostly unknown but I suspect are the wealthiest people on earth…”

I assume you are now backing away from this ridiculous claim and are instead targeting other potential tangents related to the Federal Reserve.

Whenever I see a post that says anything like, “Read this book as well as others,” (“Yes sir, Professor!! It’s back to the library for me!”) I assume the person writing it is interested in “teaching” as opposed to a two-way dialogue. And you’ll have to pardon me if I find it difficult to engage in a dialogue regarding the Fed with someone who “suspects” that the Fed is owned by “the wealthiest people on earth.”

[davelj]

[quote=investor]Read this book as well as others.[/quote]

How about I take your didactically-presented advice on books I should be reading as soon as you adequately re-explain this quote from your original post:

“The federal reserve is a private company, whose ownership is mostly unknown but I suspect are the wealthiest people on earth…”

I assume you are now backing away from this ridiculous claim and are instead targeting other potential tangents related to the Federal Reserve.

Whenever I see a post that says anything like, “Read this book as well as others,” (“Yes sir, Professor!! It’s back to the library for me!”) I assume the person writing it is interested in “teaching” as opposed to a two-way dialogue. And you’ll have to pardon me if I find it difficult to engage in a dialogue regarding the Fed with someone who “suspects” that the Fed is owned by “the wealthiest people on earth.”

[davelj]

[quote=investor]Read this book as well as others.[/quote]

How about I take your didactically-presented advice on books I should be reading as soon as you adequately re-explain this quote from your original post:

“The federal reserve is a private company, whose ownership is mostly unknown but I suspect are the wealthiest people on earth…”

I assume you are now backing away from this ridiculous claim and are instead targeting other potential tangents related to the Federal Reserve.

Whenever I see a post that says anything like, “Read this book as well as others,” (“Yes sir, Professor!! It’s back to the library for me!”) I assume the person writing it is interested in “teaching” as opposed to a two-way dialogue. And you’ll have to pardon me if I find it difficult to engage in a dialogue regarding the Fed with someone who “suspects” that the Fed is owned by “the wealthiest people on earth.”

[Author]

Posts