NWO Monetary System

Post Reply New Topic

I said a similar thing awhile back.



But yeah, it really is hard to disconfirm the hypothesis that a NWO exists, and evidence that it exists has to basically try to overthrow all of our trust of other groups of people, as the idea is that most of our information sources are either coordinating with the NWO or stupid, and this either leads to the notion of a lot of people in on the conspiracy, or a lot of people who seem intelligent, actually not being so.

Just thought I'd weigh in with some info on how the Fed actually works. There is technically a government oversight comittee, called the board of governers, which is appointed by the President and who serve staggered terms to help prevent domination by any political party. This does not equate to government oversight, however, and the decisions made by the Fed do not require any approval from another government agency. The term Independent within Government is often used to describe this relationship.

All monetary policy in the United states is determined by the FOMC, Federal Open Market Comittee. This is made up of the 7 members of the Board of governors, as well as the President of the NYC reserve bank, and 4 other federal reserve bank presidents on a rotating basis. The FOMC meets to determine the Monetary policy, and there is no additional government oversight into these meetings or decisions beyond the board of governors.

As to the legality of this whole setup, Congressman Ron Paul contends that "The United States Constitution grants to Congress the authority to coin money and regulate the value of the currency. The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to delegate control over monetary policy to a central bank."

Also, not to pick on you specifically, but I believe you questioned what the creation of money has to do with freedom. This is a valid question, but really it runs deeper than just creating money. This supposedly government agency is not populated by any directly elected representatives of the American people. They also operate in relative secrecy, and have been immune to audits and outside inquiry. In addition, the organization is owned privately by selling non-transferrable stock to private banks, a pre-requisite for becoming a member bank. This creates tremendous opportunity for private financial interests to influence their policies. These same private interests can and do lobby lawmakers, along with corporate interests, which supply the bulk of their deposits and cash flow. If money, and not the interest of the people, controls the direction of legislation, freedom is endangered.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TY8NuNxb-Q0&feature=related[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXM974ivKkc&feature=related[/youtube]

No, that is a logical fallacy - one which gets touted very often. I'm assuming you're aware of the methodology of 'compartmentalisation'

That's true, but you also had to see the task the FED-Act gives the FED:



This goals had been amended quite frequently - most recent in 2000. The FED did exactly what the law maker asked the FED to do: Providing cheap money. I therefore do not blame the FED, but Congress and Andministration.

It is here to notice the difference to the goals of the ECB:



The ECB is only entitled to "support the general economic policies", if the currency is stable. The stability of the currency it the primary goal.



And the ECB of none of the European People - Those elected representatives do not look further than than the next general election. To provide elected representatives with a machine which can produce on the short run money to make presents for the voters or to run politics (aka wars) without presenting the bill directly to the tax payer (aka voter) is the most dangerous think which can happen to a currency.

We have numerous examples: The UK in 1970s, France till the early 1980s, extremely Germany in 1923 and 1934-1945/48, but also the US under Nixon and Ford, how governments try to "solve" problems with the printing press. I am afraid that Obama and Brown are just going this way. Currencies which are controlled by semi-private organisations (like the Swizz Franc or the UK prior 1948) are much more stable and on the long run better for a country than money under the control of politicians.



The FED is not "owned" - there exist nothing like a "ownership" of the FED. The FED is under the control of congress.



In which way?



The FED is the maker of money - the FED can "produce" as much dollars the FED like to produce.

No it isn't.

By "compartmentalization" do you mean the imperfect application of standard methodologies across all subjects? The issue in this case is that we are dealing with experts on these topics, who apparently do not see the flaws, I don't see how they are compartmentalizing.

lol 'Yes it is'.

no, i'm meaning in reference to the organisational structure of the MIC and attendant bureaucracies - and therefore a logical fallacy. .

Yes, the Fed has stated goals. Now how do they implement them? That's what I'm concerned with. They use closed door meetings with little to no oversight or accountability. The only auditing is done by either the Government Accountability Office, although this is financial and information security related only, and by the Feds own Inspector General.



The Federal Reserve Act is under the control of congress. While this technically places the Fed at the mercy of congress, they are not subservient, they are independent. Again, there is no requirement for congress approval before any monetary policy is enacted.

Perhaps I should go a little deeper to illustrate the extent to which banks control the governance of the Fed. Federal Reserve Bank Presidents are appointed by each FRB's board of directors. This board is made up of 6 elected officials, determined by the shareholders in that particular FRB (the member banks). The remaining 3 are appointed by the Feds Board of governors. That effectively gives the shareholders a 2/3 majority in determining the bank presidents. As I stated earlier, 5 of these bank presidents join the Board of Governers to form the FOMC, which determines ALL monetary policy for the US.

Additionally, if you research the background of the current BoG members, you'll find that 2 of the 6 have extensive financial backgrounds, Elizabeth Duke, a prominent banker, and Kevin Warsh having been the Vice President of Morgan Stanley. Add to that the 5 bank elected presidents, and you have a 7 of 11 majority (there is currently one vacancy, but 7 of 12 is still a majority). Although this is not automatically the case all the time, it is not unlikely that at least some of the appointed BoG members will have financial ties at any given time.



Hey, that was my argument. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT!

But seriously, that is exactly the problem. They also attempt to regulate the interest rates at which banks lend to eachother, as well as setting the reserve requirements. Both of these directly affect how much profit banks can make. This is far too much power for a lightly regulated independent agency to have. Please note I am not claiming that there is a global conspiracy to debase the dollar and bring about the NWO. I'm just trying to point out how vulnerable we are to the will of the financial sector.

No, it really isn't. If I made one, point to the one I made.

Here are the claims:
1 Other groups are intently watching system X
2 These other groups do not find problem Y with system X
3 The logical explanations for this appear to be that these groups are stupid, or they are in cahoots with the problem makers in system X, as we know that they are paying large amounts of attention
4 The probability that groups watching X are wrong stands against our current worldview claims so immensely that the evidence allowing us to shift positions must be relatively extraordinary, given that our best information suggests that the watchers are intelligent and have some independence.


If you are talking about organizational structures, you aren't talking about logical fallacies. Logical fallacies relate to how a person processes claims.
For example:
Socrates is a man
Men are immortal
Ergo Socrates is immortal
is certainly wrong, but it contains 0 logical fallacies.

In any case, your reference to bureaucracies hardly makes a point, for I never explicitly mentioned a strong hierarchical group. For example, university professors are a general group that have relatively weak oversight compared to the average person in society, but they are generally not in favor of an NWO hypothesis, despite having greater access to data than the average person, and knowing it more intimately than the average reporter. If there is one group in society that we would expect to find a problem in our system, you would think that it would be professors, who seem to be, unwittingly, the greatest supporters of the current order by creating the apologetics for it and working within the system.

So, to go back to my point, you have to say the following things:
a) The academic establishment is all dumb(despite having done years and years of research and many being smarter than us by all known measures)
or
b) The academic establishment is all under the control of the government, despite the fact that a larger number of academics likely have variations in political views that are well outside of those held by the average person in the populace, and given that there are a very large number of academics who mostly went into the field out of curiosity.

After all, I would think that expert historians, economists, political scientists, sociologists, etc, would have likely found definitive and incontrovertible evidence for NWO claims long before the tin-foil hatters ever did. After all, the first group studies this stuff for a living, is considered extremely educated by the standards of society, and has access to resources that we cannot usually get our hands upon.

Note, I am not saying that every academic thinks that 9/11 was caused by groups external to the government, but a very large number of them appear to.

You are saying the entire discipline of economics is fake? You are saying that everyone who works in the financial system is just part of a make? Just like that??? This is what I am talking about!! Either every economist is on the take, or they are all stupid! I mean, math in economics? It is better than the average science, and there are enough anti-government people in there who don't go blowing around "the entire system is fake folks!!".

Second, the statement that the new money is created without regard for demand for goods and services, that is false. One of the jobs of the federal reserve is price stability, or maintaining inflation at reasonable levels. The only way to do this in a growing economy is to expand the money supply, because the number of goods and services is growing. If there was no respect for that, inflation would be rampant, or deflationary spirals would occur. This doesn't happen though, unless you are in Zimbabwe. The US has an inflation rate that is relatively low.

Third, the assertion that fractional money supplies will always have inflation is false. If mathematically, the fractional money supply is at best a geometric series, then with any amount of base money, there is a set amount of money that is created on top of that. This means that if nobody creates more base, the money supply will be set, and that is just part of the mathematical nature of a geometric series.

Fourth, as for inflation, there isn't much data that a mild amount of it is wrong. I mean, the matter of the dollar being so different back then, well.... that's compounding interest of a small rate. I mean, if you take a 3% inflation rate over 95 years, then you have $17.29 = $1 95 years ago. Now, that isn't really a problem, because the change in the value of money isn't terrible, and some economists actually argue that these small changes are better than no inflation, and most economists argue that these small changes are better than deflation. The reason being that human beings have cognitive biases, that mild inflation helps relax, and that these make the economic system better.

The next part ends up being relatively wrong. Just because money comes from lending doesn't mean that the money creation is the same as debt. Usually this is done by lowering the interest rate. The change in the interest rate is how the money supply is expanded, as the money is gotten for less than the current time value of money in the system. That's an essential problem in analysis if it didn't understand that. As for the analysis of debt, a major issue is that companies regularly use debt to finance growth in their operations. In fact, it can be economically efficient for them to finance some of their operations using some form of debt, long-term or short-term, so I am not sure there is a big issue. In any case, the federal deficit, and the money supply have no real relationship, this suggestion is rather questionable, because the people who did this apparently didn't recognize that the Fed also offers lower interest rates to banks. Not only that, but people regularly buy federal bonds, which means that these federal bonds are not just matters relating to banks.

Andrew Jackson was a bit of a loony, his lack of debt is probably because his administration really didn't do very much compared to other administrations. His hatred of the bank was also highly personal in some ways as well, as it likely relates to banking actions in the West along with personal disagreements with Biddle(whose first name I forget) for things Biddle was doing.

The analysis of interest? Well, it's stupid. Loans are being perpetually taken out, and they are also perpetually being repaid. Not only that, but the loans are paid with new value created, not exactly the same as money, but rather what money attempts to represent. As for bankruptcy built into the system, well, I don't see it, as not everybody is taking on a load of debt at once. I mean, just because someone is taking on debt does not mean that sum of future earnings cannot be greater than this debt. Not only that, but not everything is on debt, the assertion made by the video is relatively questionable.

As for the court case Jerome Daly vs the Bank... yeah, those people are morons. Consideration can be anything, this can be seen in Hamer vs Sidway, where consideration was simply refraining from a set of actions that the person could legally do. This was in 1891. So, therefore, any consideration is valid consideration, and if there was no valid consideration, people would never borrow money in the first place. Not only that, but the case did not become a part of our common law, as Daly ended up losing the case due to a nullification of the judge's actions.

Modern slavery??? Ooh, wow.... impressive.

In any case, no, I think that the entire video is BS. It is just propaganda, as basically, it has to argue that both the entire law establishment and the entire economics establishment are in cahoots to screw humanity over, and that most people in these establishments are either lying or dumb.

As long as this sort of video is the source of your information, you are worse than the people you would claim to be sheep. They seek no information, you seek BAD information.

mmstick, you tell others to grow up, but that is precisely what you need to do. If possible, I would make a significant bet that in ten years you won't believe half of this nonsense.

I'm getting the feeling you haven't travelled round the globe much and seen the 'real world'.

What happens if the mechanisms you propose as functional fall on their ass? monetisation of the gross deficit? Yeah, Zimbabwe and Weimar Rep. might as well be of a different planetary constellation for all the lessons learnt apparently.

What I see is no accountability and pockets being lined as plane tickets are being bought.

I don't really understand is it just faith in an a supposed intimate knowledge of the workings that the simple reality becomes elusive to you?

How so 'quantative easing' isn't a byword for a precursor to significant depression?

http://seekingalpha.com/article/129128- ... ld-default
http://www.cnbc.com/id/29769858
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/ ... CY20090318
http://www.gata.org/node/7260
http://inflation.us/charts.html

once again you are confusing posters. In doesn't lend much credence to your acuity tbh, VB.

You've already made it clear you were a 'conspiracy theorist' who saw 'the light'. No need to keep running through the evangelical routine.

Not confusing posters at all.



I take offense to your depiction of me. Do not compare my acquiring actual knowledge of the world with some sort of religious epiphany. Do not ever call me evangelical. I am fundamentalist regarding absolutely nothing.

*FLEX*

ok.



I reiterate - compartmentalisation.

In terms of academia, those that do speak out lose their careers - it would be a nonsense to suggest speaking out against the prevailing discourse in academia doesn't incite severe penalty. I would rule out mass complicity but not stupidity. I'm afraid I do not defer to the ivory towers as much as you think is want to be necessary *shrugs*

Probably it's worth pointing out the very volume, increasing rapidity and steadfastness that diverse 'world leaders' are adopting the refrain of NWO in the MSM too. In the kingdom of the blind the one eyed man is king etc.

You ARE confusing posters edit) AGAIN because half that quote is from a 15 year old with the member title 'mmstick' and half (give or take) is from an entirely different entity, a 35 year old poster with the member title 'Concenik' - namely me!

I will refrain from calling you 'evangelical' when you desist from manifesting such attributes.. thus far pretty much every comment from you this way has been about how 'you saw' the error of your past thinking and 'acquired actual knowledge of the world' or how we must 'realise' our grave error in analysis - forgive me but that strikes me as more than slightly proselytising. flex bakatcha

Last edited by Concenik on 14 Apr 2009, 8:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.