Dette emne indeholder 681 svar, har 62 stemmer og blev senest opdateret af Anonym11-08-2014 13:16 .
19. september 2008 kl. 13:16 #126625Anonym19-09-2008 13:16
Jeg synes dette her er ude i hamperøgen. Men lad os da afskaffe de monetære systemer, og gå tilbage til naturalieøkonomi. Jeg skal alligevel på fisketur i weekenden, så det er bare med at tømme havet, så jeg kan betale husleje til den første.
Bare min husvært nu kan li’ fisk….19. september 2008 kl. 13:18 #126627Anonym19-09-2008 13:18
Den bog er ikke ret meget værd. Den er nærmest renset for ligninger.
En bog, man stikker ud til førsteårsstuderende.19. september 2008 kl. 13:19 #126629Michael19-09-2008 13:19
Kan du ikke komme med en saglig begrundelse for dine udtalelser Neptun andet end at linke til nogle Youtube-klip og udtale: “I kan tro hvad I vil”??
Ellers vil jeg da lige lege med:
Jorden er flad. Vi er blevet bedraget gennem tusind år af nogle onde pengegriske mænd med Bush i spidsen. Det hele handler om verdensdominans – og I kan tro hvad I vil…19. september 2008 kl. 13:22 #126631Anonym19-09-2008 13:22
Præcis, Prier, og det er netop den grundlæggende forståelse det kniber med. 😉 Tal skal først ind over, når grundprincipperne er sunket ind. Og Neptun forekommer mig – igen med al respekt – ikke at være nået så langt endnu.19. september 2008 kl. 13:27 #126633Anonym19-09-2008 13:27
Som grundbog er den udemærket. Den slår begrebssammenhængene fast, men den får aldrig koblet teori med praksis.
Problemet i bogen er, at man af pædagogiske hensyn antager pengemængden er en exogen variabel.
I virkelighedens verden er renten exogen, pengemængden endogen, sammenhængen mellem rente og pengemængde er ikke altid clear cut case og alt andet er slet ikke lige!19. september 2008 kl. 13:30 #126635Anonym19-09-2008 13:30
Jeg er ikke her for at overbevise nogen der ikke ønsker den information jeg giver.
Hvis i ikke vil lytte, er det ikke mit problem! Jeg spilder ikke min tid på ligegyldige diskussioner for at få ret. Jeg ved jeg har ret og jeg ved vi får et krak meget snart. Det sker per design og har vidst det ville ske i flere år nu.
At i har tillid til et komplet korrupt system som har bildt jer ind at huspriserne ville stige endnu mere og i værste fald resultere i en blød landing, må blive jeres hovedpine.
Eliten snupper snart gevinsten og jeres fasteejendom fordi i ingen penge har til hverken mad eller husleje.
Har i forberedt jer på det værste krak nogensinde? Nope!
Vil i gå i panik når hele systemet krakker? Ja!
Vil i huske denne samtale når det sker? Sikkert ikke fordi en sulten nabo prøver at stjæle jeres sidste ris.
Verden vil bedrages.
Her en film mere:
Undersøg det selv eller tænd for jeres TV. Der er sikkert noget ligegyldig underholdning der kan bedøve nerverne.19. september 2008 kl. 13:34 #126637Anonym19-09-2008 13:34
Endnu en tåbelig kommentar.
Pointen er vel snarere, at det er samfundets elite der sidder på fast ejendom, og at det nu er dem der tager tabet.
Et krak på de finansielle markeder giver netop en redistribution af velfærd fra kreditor til debitor.
De fattige, som ikke ejer fast ejendom, vinder netop på at boligmarkedet krakker.19. september 2008 kl. 13:42 #126639Anonym19-09-2008 13:42
Prier: Du har for så vidt ret. Men i økonomisk grundteori er alt andet jo netop lige – det er en af de nødvendige forudsætninger i teoriapparatet. Hvad praksis angår ligger det udenfor min viden, da jeg ikke er økonom som sådan, men samfundsvidenskabelig.
Derudover synes jeg at denne debat er ved at udvikle sig lidt i denne retning: http://www.sive.dk/tom_gillesberg.html19. september 2008 kl. 13:43 #126641Michael19-09-2008 13:43
Neptunen er vist ude i noget Bilderberg, Alex Jones paranoia, world domination ting. Et klart tegn når han tydeligt afviser at komme med saglig dokumentation.19. september 2008 kl. 14:05 #126647Anonym19-09-2008 14:05
Ja, eller ham her: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche19. september 2008 kl. 14:59 #126651Anonym19-09-2008 14:5919. september 2008 kl. 15:04 #126653Anonym19-09-2008 15:04
Ja, for politikeres udtalelser er altid sande og ufejlbarlige. Især amerikanske præsidentkandidater, og især amerikanske præsidentkandidater, der ikke er en faktor i valgkampen…19. september 2008 kl. 15:11 #126655Anonym19-09-2008 15:11
Som jeg skrev. Verdenen vil bedrages.19. september 2008 kl. 15:14 #126657Anonym19-09-2008 15:14
… med dig i spidsen, gamle dreng. 😉20. september 2008 kl. 0:51 #126669Anonym20-09-2008 0:51
The following is a conversation with Mr. Ron Supinski of the Public Information Department of the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank. This is an account of that conversation.
CALLER – Mr.
Supinski, does my country own the Federal Reserve System?
MR. SUPINSKI – We are an agency of the government.
CALLER – That’s not my question.
Is it owned by my country?
MR. SUPINSKI – It is an agency of the government created by congress.
CALLER – Is the Federal Reserve a Corporation?
SUPINSKI – Yes
CALLER – Does my government own any of the stock in the Federal Reserve?
MR. SUPINSKI – No, it is owned by the member banks.
CALLER – Are the member banks private corporations?
SUPINSKI – Yes
CALLER – Are Federal Reserve Notes backed by anything?
MR. SUPINSKI-Yes, by the assets of the Federal Reserve but, primarily by the power of congress to lay tax on the people.
CALLER – Did you say, by the power to collect taxes is what backs Federal Reserve Notes?
SUPINSKI – Yes
CALLER – What are the total assets of the Federal Reserve?
MR. SUPINSKI – The San Francisco Bank has $36 Billion in assets.
CALLER – What are these assets composed of?
MR. SUPINSKI – Gold, the Federal Reserve Bank itself and government securities.
CALLER – What value does the Federal Reserve Bank carry gold per oz.
on their books?
MR. SUPINSKI – I don’t have that information but the San Francisco Bank has $1.6 billion in gold.
CALLER – Are you saying the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco has $1.
6 billion in gold, the bank itself and the balance of the assets is government securities?
MR. SUPINSKI – Yes.
CALLER – Where does the Federal Reserve get Federal Reserve Notes from?
MR. SUPINSKI – They are authorized by the Treasury.
CALLER – How much does the Federal Reserve pay for a $10 Federal Reserve Note?
MR. SUPINSKI – Fifty to seventy cents.
CALLER – How much do they pay for a $100.
00 Federal Reserve Note?
MR. SUPINSKI – The same fifty to seventy cents.
CALLER – To pay only fifty cents for a $100.
00 is a tremendous gain, isn’t it?
SUPINSKI – Yes
CALLER – According to the US Treasury, the Federal Reserve pays $20.60 per 1,000 denomination or a little over two cents for a $100.
00 bill, is that correct?
MR. SUPINSKI – That is probably close.
CALLER – Doesn’t the Federal Reserve use the Federal Reserve Notes that cost about two cents each to purchase US Bonds from the government?
MR. SUPINSKI – Yes, but there is more to it than that.
CALLER – Basically, that is what happens?
MR. SUPINSKI – Yes, basically you are correct.
CALLER – How many Federal Reserve Notes are in circulation?
MR. SUPINSKI – $263 billion and we can only account for a small percentage.
CALLER – Where did they go?
MR. SUPINSKI – Peoples mattress, buried in their back yards and illegal drug money.
CALLER – Since the debt is payable in Federal Reserve Notes, how can the $4 trillion national debt be paid-off with the total Federal Reserve Notes in circulation?
MR. SUPINSKI – I don’t know.
CALLER – If the Federal Government would collect every Federal Reserve Note in circulation would it be mathematically possible to pay the $4 trillion national debt?
SUPINSKI – No
CALLER – Am I correct when I say, $1 deposited in a member bank $8 can be lent out through Fractional Reserve Policy?
MR. SUPINSKI – About $7.
CALLER – Correct me if I am wrong but, $7 of additional Federal Reserve Notes were never put in circulation. But, for lack of better words were “created out of thin air ” in the form of credits and the two cents per denomination were not paid either. In other words, the Federal Reserve Notes were not physically printed but, in reality were created by a journal entry and lent at interest.
Is that correct?
SUPINSKI – Yes
CALLER – Is that the reason there are only $263 billion Federal Reserve Notes in circulation?
MR. SUPINSKI – That is part of the reason.
CALLER – Am I mistaking that when the Federal Reserve Act was passed (on Christmas Eve) in 1913, it transferred the power to coin and issue our nation’s money and to regulate the value thereof from Congress to a Private corporation. And my country now borrows what should be our own money from the Federal Reserve (a private corporation) plus interest.
Is that correct and the debt can never be paid off under the current money system of country?
MR. SUPINSKI – Basically, yes.
CALLER – I smell a rat, do you?
MR. SUPINSKI – I am sorry, I can’t answer that, I work here.
CALLER – Has the Federal Reserve ever been independently audited?
MR. SUPINSKI – We are audited.
CALLER – Why is there a current House Resolution 1486 calling for a complete audit of the Federal Reserve by the GAO and why is the Federal Reserve resisting?
MR. SUPINSKI – I don’t know.
CALLER – Does the Federal Reserve regulate the value of Federal Reserve Notes and interest rates?
SUPINSKI – Yes
CALLER – Explain how the Federal Reserve System can be Constitutional if, only the Congress of the US, which comprises of the Senate and the House of representatives has the power to coin and issue our money supply and regulate the value thereof? [Article 1 Section 1 and Section 8] Nowhere, in the Constitution does it give Congress the power or authority to transfer any powers granted under the Constitution to a private corporation or, does it?
MR. SUPINSKI – I am not an expert on constitutional law. I can refer you to our legal department.
CALLER – I can tell you I have read the Constitution. It does NOT provide that any power granted can be transferred to a private corporation.
Doesn’t it specifically state, all other powers not granted are reserved to the States and to the citizens? Does that mean to a private corporation?
MR. SUPINSKI – I don’t think so, but we were created by Congress.
CALLER – Would you agree it is our country and it should be our money as provided by our Constitution?
MR. SUPINSKI – I understand what you are saying.
CALLER – Why should we borrow our own money from a private consortium of bankers? Isn’t this why we had a revolution, created a separate sovereign nation and a Bill of Rights?
MR. SUPINSKI – (Declined to answer).
CALLER – Has the Federal Reserve ever been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court?
MR. SUPINSKI – I believe there has been court cases on the matter.
CALLER – Have there been Supreme Court Cases?
MR. SUPINSKI – I think so, but I am not sure..
CALLER – Didn’t the Supreme Court declare unanimously in A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. vs. US and Carter vs. Carter Coal Co. the corporative-state arrangement an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power? [“The power conferred is the power to regulate. This is legislative delegation in its most obnoxious form; for it is not even delegation to an official or an official body, presumptively disinterested, but to private persons.” Carter vs. Carter Coal Co…]
MR. SUPINSKI – I don’t know, I can refer you to our legal department.
CALLER – Isn’t the current money system a house of cards that must fall because, the debt can mathematically never be paid-off?
MR. SUPINSKI – It appears that way. I can tell you have been looking into this matter and are very knowledgeable. However, we do have a solution.
CALLER – What is the solution?
MR. SUPINSKI – The Debit Card.
CALLER – Do you mean under the EFT Act (Electronic Funds Transfer)? Isn’t that very frightening, when one considers the capabilities of computers? It would provide the government and all it’s agencies, including the Federal Reserve such information as: You went to the gas station @ 2:30 and bought $10.00 of unleaded gas @ $1.41 per gallon and then you went to the grocery store @ 2:58 and bought bread, lunch meat and milk for $12.32 and then went to the drug store @ 3:30 and bought cold medicine for $5.62. In other words, they would know where we go, when we went, how much we paid, how much the merchant paid and how much profit he made. Under the EFT they will literally know everything about us.
Isn’t that kind of scary?
MR. SUPINSKI – Yes, it makes you wonder.
CALLER – I smell a GIANT RAT that has overthrown my constitution.
Aren’t we paying tribute in the form of income taxes to a consortium of private bankers?
MR. SUPINSKI – I can’t call it tribute, it is interest.
CALLER – Haven’t all elected officials taken an oath of office to preserve and defend the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic? Isn’t the Federal Reserve a domestic enemy?
MR. SUPINSKI – I can’t say that.
CALLER – Our elected officials and members of the Federal Reserve are guilty of aiding and abetting the overthrowing of my Constitution and that is treason.
Isn’t the punishment of treason death?
MR. SUPINSKI – I believe so.
CALLER – Thank you for your time and information and if I may say so, I think you should take the necessary steps to protect you and your family and withdraw your money from the banks before the collapse, I am.
MR. SUPINSKI – It doesn’t look good.
CALLER – May God have mercy on the souls who are behind this unconstitutional and criminal act called the Federal Reserve. When the ALMIGHTY MASS awakens to this giant hoax, they will not take it with a grain of salt. It has been a pleasure talking to you and I thank you for your time. I hope you will take my advice before it does collapse.
MR. SUPINSKI – Unfortunately, it does not look good.
CALLER – Have a good day and thanks for your time.
MR. SUPINSKI – Thanks for calling.
If the reader has any doubts to the validity of this conversation, call your nearest Federal Reserve Bank, YOU KNOW THE QUESTIONS TO ASK! You won’t find them listed under the Federal Government. They are in the white pages, along with Federal Express, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC), and any other business. Find out for yourself if all this is true.
And then, go to your local law library and look up the case of Lewis vs. US, case #80-5905, 9th Circuit, June 24, 1982. It reads in part: “Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the federal reserve are NOT federal instrumentality’s . . but are independent and privately owned and controlled corporations – federal reserve banks are listed neither as “wholly-owned’ government corporations [under 31 USC Section 846] nor as ‘mixed ownership’ corporations [under 31 USC Section 856] . . . 28 USC Sections 1346(b), 2671.
Federal agency’ is defined as: the executive departments, the military departments, independent establishments of the United States, and corporations acting primarily as instrumentality’s of the United States, but does not include any contractors with the United States . . . There are no sharp criteria for determining whether an entity is a federal agency within the meaning of the Act, but the critical factor is the existence of the federal government control over the ‘detailed physical performance’ and ‘day to day operations’ of that entity.
Other factors courts have considered include whether the entity is an independent corporation . . . whether the government is involved in the entity’s finances, . . . and whether the mission of the entity furthers the policy of the United States . . . Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks, and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities ….
It is evident from the legislative history of the Federal Reserve Act that Congress did not intend to give the federal government direction over the daily operation of the Reserve Banks . . . The fact that the Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks does not make them federal agencies under the Act . . . Unlike typical federal agencies, each bank is empowered to hire and fire employees at will. Bank employees do not participate in the Civil Service Retirement System. They are covered by worker’s compensation insurance, purchased by the Bank, rather than the Federal Employees Compensation Act.
Employees traveling on Bank business are not subject to federal travel regulations and do not receive government employee discounts on lodging and services . . . Finally, the Banks are empowered to sue and be sued in their own name. 12 USC Section 341. They carry their own liability insurance and typically process and handle their own claims . . .” According to the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, “When the Federal Reserve was created, its stock was sold to the member banks.” (“The Hats The Federal Reserve Wears,” published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia).
The original Stockholders of the Federal Reserve Banks in 1913 were the Rockefeller’s, JP Morgan, Rothschild’s, Lazard Freres, Schoellkopf, Kuhn-Loeb, Warburgs, Lehman Brothers and Goldman Sachs. The MONEYCHANGERS wanted to be insured they had a monopoly over our money supply, so Congress passed into law Title 12, Section 284 of the United States Code.
Section 284 specifically states, “NO STOCK ALLOWED TO THE US” *
Monopoly – “A privilege or peculiar advantage vested in one or more persons or companies, consisting in the exclusive right [or power] to carry on a particular business or trade, manufacture a particular article, or control the sale of the whole supply of a particular commodity, A form of market structure in which only a few firms dominate the total sales of a product or service.
‘Monopoly,’ as prohibited by Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, has two elements: possession of a monopoly power in relevant market and willful acquisition or maintenance of that power, as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior power, business acumen, or historical product. A monopoly condemned by the Sherman Act is the power to fix prices, or exclude competition, coupled with policies designed to use and preserve that power.” (Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition) The Federal Reserve Act goes one step farther, “No Senator or Representative in Congress shall be a member of the Federal Reserve Board or an officer or director of a Federal Reserve Bank.” They didn’t want We The People to have any say in the operation of their monopoly through our elected officials.
Du skal være logget ind for at svare på dette indlæg.