BF2S Forums Is the Federal Reserve system bad and contributing to economic woes?

The US doesn't even control the federal reserve. These people at the reserve intentionally mess around with inflation trying to rob Americans. Especially when the fed chairman has secret meeting with the crazy true leaders of the world

they dont need money anymore, money isn't what the bankers or the leaders want anymore. They want more power and control over the people. How do they control the American people? By constantly feeding the people bullshit media about an imaginary terrorist that wants to kill them. Government uses fear to get anything they want. The stupid American people are selling away all their liberties away for basement bargain prices.

Just to continue this vein here:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Buckles wrote:

Dude, I work for the biggest bank in the world. My boss up top doesn't want to take over the world, I'm pretty sure...

ICBC?

Are you sure you're sure?

Try here
Globally recognised for being environmentally and eco-friendly. Pours billions every year into preventing climate change and invests nearly as much in youth development.

So not all financial institutions are evil and satanic.

Bertster7 wrote:

Buckles wrote:

Just to continue this vein here:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

ICBC?

Are you sure you're sure?

Try here

Where it still says ICBC is the biggest bank?

HSBC Holdings - Value: $180.81 Billion
ICBC               - Value: $289.57 Billion

The Forbes list is pretty much definitive, and it isn't just looking at market value. It takes a holistic view (assets, holdings, profit, turnover, sphere of influence etc) and in that situation, HSBC ranks numero uno.

Anyway, the original issue is that not all financial institutions are evil and out for world domination. Some take their corporate responsibilities extremely seriously and invest huge amounts of money in the environment, the 3rd world and other charitable causes.

CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:

if the US economy tanks, won't it be in the vested interest of the fed to ensure this doesn't happen if they indeed get their money from the US economy?

No. You would know this if you actually READ the quotes I posted, but the Fed was created by European international bankers. It is owned by a private list of stockholders. If they tank the US economy, then they lose nothing, instead, they REPOSSESS what we bought with their monopoly money. Get it?

CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:

Some people contend that the Federal reserve system in the US concentrates real monetary power in the hands of a few rich bankers.  with us coming off of the gold standard where each dollar was backed with real value, now we are faced with cases where we seem to be printing money (inflation) to prop up an economy many feel is floundering.  Some economists believe that we have already artificially inflated our economy and it's going to get alot worse before it gets better.  Is the federal reserve system at fault here?  what dangers are there in this system?  does it really contribute to the 'rich-getting richer' argument so popular these days?  or, are there any redeeming values to the system at all?


Acknowledgements:  Marinejuana created a thread topic on this earlier but the meat of the problem got lost in his style of posting.  here's that thread for reference:  http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=103939

This is such a joke. You ever heard of a straw man argument? That's what you just made. LOL, you literally close my thread so you can make this hackneyed straw-man in your own ignorant words and lock access to the quotes originally posted. What on earth is the point in starting a debate on a forum, when my masses of PRIMARY SOURCES for you to evaluate is now LOCKED because you folks evidently have the rational sensibilities of a child. Can't you think for yourself?

You more than prove my point with this decision. You are completely unable to evaluate information and think for yourself (flaming, cpt. spaulding). If I give you the raw material on which to logically draw conclusions, I get insulted 20 times for my "method." There is no other method, idiots. You either evaluate the info for yourself, or recognize your position as mere faith in your instructor. It's not my fault that your whole life's education was built on this irrational faith. There is no telling if you will ever learn to think considering the damage already done.

This is what happens when you raise a society on sugar coated textbook blurbs and TV sound bites. I absolutely give up on you. You have had every opportunity now to look up this issue and the people that participated in this debate. The fact that you beg for access to primary sources to be shut down proves to me that there is absolutely nothing I can do to change your subjective receptiveness to these ideas. Good luck living your ignorant life.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

Buckles wrote:

Just to continue this vein here:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Buckles wrote:

Dude, I work for the biggest bank in the world. My boss up top doesn't want to take over the world, I'm pretty sure...

ICBC?

Are you sure you're sure?

Try here
Globally recognised for being environmentally and eco-friendly. Pours billions every year into preventing climate change and invests nearly as much in youth development.

So not all financial institutions are evil and satanic.

Sorry, you are looking up the wrong banks. The issue is most of all with the central banks and international banks. If ICBC was the biggest bank in the world, then this might not be such a problem.

And lets dissect this statement, "globally recognized" by who? globalists? "environmentally friendly" globalists? That sounds like their MO. Now if you had read my huge list of quotes and put some thought into them, you would realize that its absolutely no surprise that these usury institutions put themselves in those exact terms. It means nothing that they will water some garden with billions of dollars. It's pennies to them. While you are praising them for dropping pennies in the "save the children" cups, they are participating in the construction of a permanent monetary world order. Yeah, they are very charitable. Maybe you should pick up a stack of ICBC pamphlets and eat a tub of frosting.

Anyway, even the smaller banks dilute our economy. Research fractional reserve lending. You take a loan at one bank for $1000 and deposit it in the next one. The next one can now issue about $10,000 based on your fake initial $1000. Then another person takes that $10,000 in a loan and deposits it in another bank and this principal can go towards a $100,000 loan. Indeed, all banks are allowed to lend out *almost 10 times more than they have and then collect interest on it as if they actually gave you something that they owned or created. This is a big part of why our currency is devalued, and its also a big part of why we live in "import cultures." The banks make money out of nothing, money the industries they choose, and then we trade our "money" for things of real value all over the world. Most of us think its kinda nice, as long as we get to take the loans from our banks, then we live pretty well. Problem is that as soon as they call in the loans like in 1929, then we have to essentially give back everything we bought with dollars to the banks that own the dollars.

Now this isn't the end of the world if you're a subsistence farmer with seed stocks, but if you live in a city, and live on the bull market, then you are fucked.

It's overt robbery. So you can call yourself "globally recognized for being environmentally and eco-friendly." Its just some empty rhetoric. Adolph Hitler was the Times "man of the year." Do you realize how great he was for the economy? All the jobs he created!? As long as you only take your info from billion dollar propaganda outfits and corporate press releases, then you will only ever know what they choose to tell you.

Bertster7 wrote:

Buckles wrote:

Just to continue this vein here:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

ICBC?

Are you sure you're sure?

Try here

Where it still says ICBC is the biggest bank?

HSBC Holdings - Value: $180.81 Billion
ICBC               - Value: $289.57 Billion

The biggest bank in the world is the Bank of International Settlements. It has access to the holdings of most on that list and good luck ever discovering who owns the shares.

Last edited by Marinejuana (2008-06-27 14:07:41)

Buckles wrote:

Dude, quit smoking. You're using irrational stances on irrational arguments to back up irrational claims.
Your argument is fundmentally flawed.

What you're spewing only makes sense if you skew all the evidence (as you obviously have done) to point towards that end.


I could prove that the sky was green if I selected my sources well enough.

lol. okay, move along.

Do you realize how environmental globalism manifests itself amongst the monetary elite? There have been two primary policies that make money in environmentalism: The numerous land grabbing efforts by the globalists to buy land and restrict human access was the first strategy (the the World Heritage Program). The most current is the push for global carbon and resource taxation, even though many scientists agree that global warming may have nothing to do with carbon and everything to do with solar activity. Do I need to explain how these moneyed policies subvert the "green movement" towards further concentration of power? I realize that there are many environmental institutions, but the one's that have money aren't saving whales, they are dumping money into establishing new sources of "scientifically legitimate" power. They are not going to explain this to you on the corporate evening news or in the pamphlets that you read while eating frosting.

Last edited by Marinejuana (2008-06-27 14:32:30)

CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:

@Marinejuana:  why do you have to act in this manner.  everything is not a personal attack against you.  chill out.

i did not intend my thread to be a straw man argument even if you took it as such.  recall, i'm neutral in this.  in my mind, the fed might be bad or might be good - i really don't know.

because i am not your father. i dont have to hold your hand and make a game out of explaining this topic to you. the moment that you began making posts with the intent of dismissing or insulting my charity, i lost all patience with you. i only logged on to be helpful and provide a service. because you made a point over 2 days to diminish that and rob me of my ability to do that (thread closure), i have no reason at all to respect you. you are a mindless detractor, go disrupt something else and leave us alone.

CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:

can we keep on topic?

and thats exactly my point. i gave you so much of the information you needed to learn about this topic, but instead you and flaming cried and cried until you could lock up the useful information and keep us OFF topic and IGNORANT. the 2 of you absolutely deserve a couple paragraphs of insulting rhetoric considering the effort youve already put into stifling this debate. like i said in the other thread, flaming jumped all over it within 2 minutes of me posting the 20 page document. neither of you ever gave it a chance or even read it, its a fucking joke that you are acting like your ears are open now that we are in your useless thread where all the info, at your request, has been removed. the truth is that if you were actually receptive to having this debate like you say, you wouldnt have dedicated all of your last 10 posts to this mindless insulting drivel about methods when you could have just spent the time reading and learning.

Last edited by Marinejuana (2008-06-27 14:38:30)

so now im supposed to begin paraphrasing the 20 pages of info i already gave you? like i said, im not your father, i dont have the time nor inclination to hold your hand and teach you everything you need to know about the world. now that you ensured my thread and OP will completely disappear over the week, youve already succeeded in stifling my effort and have wasted more of my time than i am willing to invest in helping an uncooperative stranger. maybe somebody else will come into your almost valueless thread and invest time from 2 of their own days to help you now that youve decided youre interested.

technically the Bank for International Settlements isn't one bank, but rather a bunch of banks working together.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Marinejuana:

1) Flaming/personal attack is unacceptable. You have been mildly condescending up to now, treating the entirety of DAST like children that needed to be educated, but now blatantly attacking people is no way to foster debate, especially when it is unfounded.

there was no personal attack on my part. u attacked my thread, and i protested verbally and continue to. you are in every sense the aggressor here.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

2) Don't take this out on CaptainSpaulding71. He has tried to do nothing but be helpful and push this in a direction so that it could be actually debated. He had no influence whatsoever about the other thread being closed, I just happen to agree with his thoughts when I closed it and saw that another avenue that would be more conducive to actual debate about the topic that you wanted discussed. He even pointed directly to your thread very clearly in the OP, and from everything you have been saying so far your thread does as much good closed as it does open. You just want everyone to read it and think about it right?

captain spaulding made every effort to dismiss my contributions to that thread, and the one before it. we both know he would have closed the thread and made a new one if it was up to him because, well, he proposed it! sure we can still access the thread, but now only with spauldings literally ignorant preamble. whats worse than me forcing myself to sum up such a large topic myself and with my pothead internet cred? having someone else do it that has no idea what they are talking about.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

3) Your OP in the other thread is not fit for a forum. There are many, many other places where such content would be appropriate, even welcome, but it is not fitting here. Everyone that is here is sitting in front of a terminal of infinite sources, all readily available. Why did you just show us things we could have looked up on our own? People come to forums to learn directly from other people, not to read an encyclopedia. If you want to educate us about a topic, give us a starting point, give us your views, tell us what is wrong, then tell us where to look for more information should we choose to continue reading or quotes to emphasize your points. You just gave us a pool of knowledge, and that is well and good - but give us diving board to start at. We have the internet for god's sake right here, I could learn to be an astrophysicist if I wanted to, but instead I come here because I would rather see what people have to say, using them to break down some of the more important topics into manageable bites. Your "service" has not been welcomed with open arms because you haven't done very much, just a lot of copy and paste. I could read all your quotes, or I could go look up another 20 pages of quotes about foreign policy, what would be the difference? The difference should be that I get your view on the world banking system, to agree with, or disagree with, or expound upon as I see fit. I don't want a recycled Thomas Jefferson quote that I have seen ten times before, not that it isn't good, but I want to see what you think of that Thomas Jefferson quote.

4) Giving us pure information, untainted by your own views. A noble pursuit, one not suited to forums. A balanced view in the OP is good, but no view in the OP doesn't get you anywhere. People come here because they want to challenge and be challenged, not for the news. I can think on my own and decide who I want to believe who I want all by myself and so can everyone else here, thank you very much, so I would like you to tell me what you think so I can decide whether I believe it or whether I want to do research on my own.

This has seriously struck a nerve because I love quotes so much. They take some of the most profound thoughts in a person's life and condense them into just a few seconds, telling you about that person, what they stood for, what wisdom that person has acquired over their entire life. It's like Machiavelli's The Prince, that was his entire life's work, everything he ever learned about ruling from observation, compiled into a single, rather short book. So much can be gleaned from every paragraph, every sentence, that one could spend a lifetime studying just a few thousand quotes, and many lifetimes discussing their merits and drawbacks with others. What you did in the other thread, throwing tens, hundreds of them out there at once, it's like you were putting them in a shotgun, firing off tons of them in hopes that one or two would hit. It's not fair to us, it's not fair to the quote, it's not fair to the person who said the quote. Give us a few, give us your thoughts on those few so we can appreciate them.

a few wouldnt be enough. ive made many posts on this topic on the scale that you describe and it always goes straight over people's heads, because most have never heard 2 things about the subject and begin to assume that im completely making things up. i might assume the same if i was an ignoramus reading my posts. uve already had the opportunity u are now asking for, so i dont know what ur on about. and i really cant say so much in a tidy little OP without provoking certain claims of unscrupulousness or generalization when compared with the body of quotes. its not worth trying. i gave people one giant resource in the form of a thread so that they could at least be able to discuss this topic in its context. if you dont think people are allowed to have access to a large body of rare primary sources here or u dont think its "fair" then so be it. i know you have the whole internet at your fingertips, that doenst mean you are ever going to google your way, one bit at a time, to the things you need to know. i just made an effort to give people a large convenient body of information from far more credible sources than myself. I made the same effort to provide people with large quantities of raw info when I used to post here about BF2. you are the mod, you can decide how we use the forum to communicate. this whole matter is incredibly unamerican, btw. you should be ashamed of yourself.

Marinejuana wrote:

there was no personal attack on my part. u attacked my thread, and i protested verbally and continue to. you are in every sense the aggressor here.

I am talking very specifically about these last few posts. I should hope you are not just playing stupid, but I know that you are perfectly able to read what you said and you know where the line is. I am not talking about defending your thread - please do, but attacking people is really unnecessary.

Marinejuana wrote:

captain spaulding made every effort to dismiss my contributions to that thread, and the one before it. we both know he would have closed the thread and made a new one if it was up to him because, well, he proposed it! sure we can still access the thread, but now only with spauldings literally ignorant preamble. whats worse than me forcing myself to sum up such a large topic myself and with my pothead internet cred? having someone else do it that has no idea what they are talking about.

It doesn't matter what he would have done had he been in charge, because the fact is I was, and I was the one that originally brought up the idea of closure. He towards the very beginning asked you to make a new thread, and I was hoping that you would do the same so I could close the original and we could all move on. After you continued to try to defend the original thread it became clear you were not going to make a new one, so I went with Spauldings. You had, and still do have, the option of making an appropriate OP to your liking, but when you ignored that option I went with the next best thing.

Marinejuana wrote:

a few wouldnt be enough. ive made many posts on this topic on the scale that you describe and it always goes straight over people's heads, because most have never heard 2 things about the subject and begin to assume that im completely making things up. i might assume the same if i was an ignoramus reading my posts. uve already had the opportunity u are now asking for, so i dont know what ur on about. and i really cant say so much in a tidy little OP without provoking certain claims of unscrupulousness or generalization when compared with the body of quotes. its not worth trying. i gave people one giant resource in the form of a thread so that they could at least be able to discuss this topic in its context. if you dont think people are allowed to have access to a large body of rare primary sources here or u dont think its "fair" then so be it. i know you have the whole internet at your fingertips, that doenst mean you are ever going to google your way, one bit at a time, to the things you need to know. i just made an effort to give people a large convenient body of information from far more credible sources than myself. I made the same effort to provide people with large quantities of raw info when I used to post here about BF2. you are the mod, you can decide how we use the forum to communicate. this whole matter is incredibly unamerican, btw. you should be ashamed of yourself.

Less is more. Inflating your post does nothing but make more people unwilling to read it and detract from the value of each individual quote.

If you think the task is so monumental you're not even going to try, fine, but don't whine when you half-ass it and say we're being unfair.

Those last lines are a joke. Now you're just lashing out, hoping to drag me through the mud with some poor vilification.

Cool, thanks for the very constructive posts spaulding. I'm going to sit down to those links in a couple hours and look at what you found.

Last edited by Marinejuana (2008-06-27 20:34:07)