Pages:
Author

Topic: Is it true that the Fed is privately owned - page 7. (Read 9405 times)

newbie
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
3) If you think of the New World in Historical terms, the world that materialised out of the monarchies and dynasties of Europe and Asia, then America and Australia are classic examples of the New World.  The reins of powered are very much rooted in the central banks of the world.  We are living in the New World now it isn't a conspiracy, the next world order "the conspiracy theories hype" won't be calling it the new world order, it'll have a new name. We are in the New World now, and it has an Order to it that isn't working to the benefit of the people, and can't be changed through democratic processes, so no need to call it conspiracy, it is fact.  
Not to feed into conspiracies but it is not (new world) order but rather new (world order). A change in the way the world is run.
The point is the same. It's not a conspiracy, it's just plain facts. The world is being run by an international oligarchy.
I know what you mean.
You mean this, right?
No - thats an implementation detail.  As is the ECB and the Fed.
Right, an implementation detail of international central planning. In other words, the world is being run by an international oligarchy.

Not run by them but seriously influenced.  If millionaires formed a political party, they would have the overwhelming majority of Congress, the Judiciary and the Presidency.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/06/if-the-millionaires-party-ever-gets-its-act-together-watch-out/ They haven't but you can't expect those institutions to act hard against millionaires can you?

Likewise you can't expect much action billionaires disapprove of.  
And you wonder why I'm an anarchist?

Anarchism wouldn't' make any difference.  The rich and powerful will still have the men with guns. 

Does anyone else want to know how far these nested boxes will go?

There are more of us than there is of them
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
After Bitcoin I see only 1 hurdle to overcome in achieving the pure Free Market Economy. And that is redefining land as properly property, and solving Marx's dilemma.

As properTy? Land ís defined as property?

Did I misunderstand you?
Spelling who would have thought it could confuse people, yes "property"
One question, though: Isn't land already property?
legendary
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000
After Bitcoin I see only 1 hurdle to overcome in achieving the pure Free Market Economy. And that is redefining land as properly property, and solving Marx's dilemma.

As properTy? Land ís defined as property?

Did I misunderstand you?
Spelling who would have thought it could confuse people, yes "property"
newbie
Activity: 42
Merit: 0

After Bitcoin I see only 1 hurdle to overcome in achieving the pure Free Market Economy. And that is redefining land as properly, and solving Marx's dilemma.


As properTy? Land ís defined as property?

Did I misunderstand you?
newbie
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
3) If you think of the New World in Historical terms, the world that materialised out of the monarchies and dynasties of Europe and Asia, then America and Australia are classic examples of the New World.  The reins of powered are very much rooted in the central banks of the world.  We are living in the New World now it isn't a conspiracy, the next world order "the conspiracy theories hype" won't be calling it the new world order, it'll have a new name. We are in the New World now, and it has an Order to it that isn't working to the benefit of the people, and can't be changed through democratic processes, so no need to call it conspiracy, it is fact.  
Not to feed into conspiracies but it is not (new world) order but rather new (world order). A change in the way the world is run.
The point is the same. It's not a conspiracy, it's just plain facts. The world is being run by an international oligarchy.
I know what you mean.
You mean this, right?
No - thats an implementation detail.  As is the ECB and the Fed.
Right, an implementation detail of international central planning. In other words, the world is being run by an international oligarchy.

Not run by them but seriously influenced.  If millionaires formed a political party, they would have the overwhelming majority of Congress, the Judiciary and the Presidency.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/06/if-the-millionaires-party-ever-gets-its-act-together-watch-out/ They haven't but you can't expect those institutions to act hard against millionaires can you?

Likewise you can't expect much action billionaires disapprove of.  
And you wonder why I'm an anarchist?

Anarchism wouldn't' make any difference.  The rich and powerful will still have the men with guns. 

Does anyone else want to know how far these nested boxes will go?

Maybe this one will crash the site. Let's find out.
full member
Activity: 182
Merit: 100
3) If you think of the New World in Historical terms, the world that materialised out of the monarchies and dynasties of Europe and Asia, then America and Australia are classic examples of the New World.  The reins of powered are very much rooted in the central banks of the world.  We are living in the New World now it isn't a conspiracy, the next world order "the conspiracy theories hype" won't be calling it the new world order, it'll have a new name. We are in the New World now, and it has an Order to it that isn't working to the benefit of the people, and can't be changed through democratic processes, so no need to call it conspiracy, it is fact.  
Not to feed into conspiracies but it is not (new world) order but rather new (world order). A change in the way the world is run.
The point is the same. It's not a conspiracy, it's just plain facts. The world is being run by an international oligarchy.
I know what you mean.
You mean this, right?
No - thats an implementation detail.  As is the ECB and the Fed.
Right, an implementation detail of international central planning. In other words, the world is being run by an international oligarchy.

Not run by them but seriously influenced.  If millionaires formed a political party, they would have the overwhelming majority of Congress, the Judiciary and the Presidency.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/06/if-the-millionaires-party-ever-gets-its-act-together-watch-out/ They haven't but you can't expect those institutions to act hard against millionaires can you?

Likewise you can't expect much action billionaires disapprove of.  
And you wonder why I'm an anarchist?

Anarchism wouldn't' make any difference.  The rich and powerful will still have the men with guns. 

Does anyone else want to know how far these nested boxes will go?
legendary
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000

True - the one big objection to democracy is that people often end up choosing between ways to make the rich richer rather than to level the playing field. 
The Athenians realised if you had a true democracy you would need prosperity or the average voter would bring the state and economy down. 
The reason people vote agenised there interests is all a result of capturing someone's imagination.   

The dream that everyone can be a millionaire in the US, is one.

And in Toronto Mayor Rob Ford captured the imagination and got the average Torontonian to vote agenised there interests with these 4 words: "Stop the Gravy train"
hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 502
Myrkul... who are your Illuminati handlers? We deserve to know!
Oh, quit playing, Bonkers. You know I report to you!

^^^^^^
 Grin Grin Grin Grin
touche!
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
Myrkul... who are your Illuminati handlers? We deserve to know!
Oh, quit playing, Bonkers. You know I report to you!
hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 502
Not run by them but seriously influenced.  If millionaires formed a political party, they would have the overwhelming majority of Congress, the Judiciary and the Presidency.


Hah, they're not that stupid. They have *two* political parties and all of the rest.

True - the one big objection to democracy is that people often end up choosing between ways to make the rich richer rather than to level the playing field. 
And the biggest fault with "leveling the playing field" is that it's generally done in accordance with the Japanese proverb: 出る杭は打たれる。 Literally: The stake that sticks out gets hammered down.

Myrkul... who are your Illuminati handlers? We deserve to know!
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
Not run by them but seriously influenced.  If millionaires formed a political party, they would have the overwhelming majority of Congress, the Judiciary and the Presidency.


Hah, they're not that stupid. They have *two* political parties and all of the rest.

True - the one big objection to democracy is that people often end up choosing between ways to make the rich richer rather than to level the playing field. 
And the biggest fault with "leveling the playing field" is that it's generally done in accordance with the Japanese proverb: 出る杭は打たれる。 Literally: The stake that sticks out gets hammered down.
legendary
Activity: 2534
Merit: 2245
1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
Its a very difficult question to answer. The true answer is that almost no companies are really privately owned in the united states. Basically only drug dealers  Tongue.

what we are really dealing with here is a sliding scale between more government influence is less government influence. The federal reserve is about as far along this scale as you can travel without being considered a fully governmental agency.

I'd actually argue that drug dealers have a higher chance of being "controlled" by the government than the Fed does. Mostly because the drug dealers (usually) can't afford to buy politicians.

Pft, the drug dealers *become* the politicians (or at least their descendants do).
legendary
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
Not run by them but seriously influenced.  If millionaires formed a political party, they would have the overwhelming majority of Congress, the Judiciary and the Presidency.


Hah, they're not that stupid. They have *two* political parties and all of the rest.

True - the one big objection to democracy is that people often end up choosing between ways to make the rich richer rather than to level the playing field. 
legendary
Activity: 2534
Merit: 2245
1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
Not run by them but seriously influenced.  If millionaires formed a political party, they would have the overwhelming majority of Congress, the Judiciary and the Presidency.


Hah, they're not that stupid. They have *two* political parties and all of the rest.
member
Activity: 97
Merit: 10
One American Sumbitch Which Love 8
No.

Its not a Jewish conspiracy either just in case that's your follow up. 

Same answer for New World Order, Trilateral Commission, Communist Party, Bilderbergs and umpteen other people who do not own the Fed.
I know. Everyone knows the Illuminati owns the Fed, and guess who's just made chairman of the board.
donator
Activity: 1736
Merit: 1010
Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.
It's a hybrid setup. It is a cartel of private banks in partnership with ownership of the gov
tl;dr
hero member
Activity: 761
Merit: 500
Mine Silent, Mine Deep
It's a hybrid setup. It is a cartel of private banks in partnership with the gov so that it has the force of law protecting their monopoly to create the base money for the nation's money supply.

G. Edward Griffin agrees. http://youtu.be/lu_VqX6J93k?t=26m45s
legendary
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000
Wouldn't they more accurately be described as exploiting the entrepreneurs? After all, the workers don't have to buy the equipment they use, or pay for the space in which they work, or take the risk that all the money they spent in developing the product would be for nothing, if the public doesn't want it. If the company they work for goes bust, they can just get a new job. The entrepreneur is out a lot of money.

Rightly so there is a balance there and a reward for risk undertaken by the entrepreneur. Marx didn't disagree with that, he just expressed labour should be valued at a fair market price not an artificially low manipulated price.

Indeed, and in a pure Free Market Economy capitalist society. , where everything is decided on the market, the price of a person's labor would necessarily be valued at a fair market price.

Yes.
I don't like the term Capitalist any more it implies Capital as Money controlled by authority as opposed to the free market, I prefer Free Market Economics or Laissez-faire
The only capitalists around today are the oligarchs behind the central banks, they control capital, the rest of us just respond to the manipulation thinking it is a free market.

After Bitcoin I see only 1 hurdle to overcome in achieving the pure Free Market Economy. And that is redefining land as property, and solving Marx's dilemma.


hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
Wouldn't they more accurately be described as exploiting the entrepreneurs? After all, the workers don't have to buy the equipment they use, or pay for the space in which they work, or take the risk that all the money they spent in developing the product would be for nothing, if the public doesn't want it. If the company they work for goes bust, they can just get a new job. The entrepreneur is out a lot of money.

Rightly so there is a balance there and a reward for risk undertaken by the entrepreneur. Marx didn't disagree with that, he just expressed labour should be valued at a fair market price not an artificially low manipulated price.

Indeed, and in a pure capitalist society, where everything is decided on the market, the price of a person's labor would necessarily be valued at a fair market price.
legendary
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000
Wouldn't they more accurately be described as exploiting the entrepreneurs? After all, the workers don't have to buy the equipment they use, or pay for the space in which they work, or take the risk that all the money they spent in developing the product would be for nothing, if the public doesn't want it. If the company they work for goes bust, they can just get a new job. The entrepreneur is out a lot of money.

Rightly so there is a balance there and a reward for risk undertaken by the entrepreneur. Marx didn't disagree with that, he just expressed labour should be valued at a fair market price not an artificially low manipulated price.

Capitalism exploits the labour vs Communism exploits the entrepreneurs.   
Pages:
Jump to: