| ||||
| ||||
| Moderated by: Joe Kelley | Page:   ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14   |
|
|||||||||||||
| It's the currency - STUPID! | Rating: 
|
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Thu Jun 17th, 2010 10:37 am |
|
201st Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25730.htm I just started listening to this and I will take time to view the entire video. What is the link? Chavez reports a drop in oil prices, and a cut in oil production as a result; as an answer to the question concerning economic recession. Please think this through.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Jun 29th, 2010 08:30 am |
|
202nd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25837.htm
What? Someone is very confused. http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/h/henry_ford_3.html There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Jul 4th, 2010 10:54 am |
|
203rd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.fpif.org/articles/move_the_money_starve_the_empire
Why not create a competitive money?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Jul 17th, 2010 09:18 am |
|
204th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25955.htm That is connected to this: http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/jimbellap.htm How? Listen to the first link and learn how power works. Note: "Wheat Futures" Accumulate huge piles of cash. Buy huge piles of long futures. "And this accumulation created a very odd phenomenon in the market. It’s called a "demand shock." Usually prices go up because supply is low, right? That’s the idea. There’s not a lot of supply, so the price goes up. In this case, Goldman and the other banks had introduced this completely unnatural and artificial demand to buy wheat, and that then set the price up. Now, a lot of people are saying, "Oh, it was biofuel production. It was drought in Australia. It was floods in Kazakhstan." Let me tell you, hard red wheat generally trades between $3 and $6 per sixty-pound bushel. It went up to $12, then $15, then $18. Then it broke $20. And on February 25th, 2008, hard red spring futures settled at $25 per bushel. This is completely beyond the pale, particularly at a— " The perception of scarcity (real or not) increases the price. People, actual people, not "Wall Street", but actual people cause an increase in the price of something because they buy a lot of it and control it and keep it and cause scarcity and cause the price to go up and cause more power to flow from their victims to them. Call it leverage, or replication, or whatever word describes the intricate details of how the crime is perpetrated, and it remains a crime, and the fact that it is a crime is perceptually less severe, the criminals are clever, innovative, etc. People use power (piles of money, and they can merely add zeros to their bank accounts whenever they want more purchasing power) to gain more power, at the expense of their innocent victims. These people who use their power are called "Wall Street". They are people. No one has a name for them, not in that Media stream - not in that link - just Wall Street. Wall Street does this, and Wall Street does that, and no names. Futures are claims, tickets, or debts, promises to pay, as well as ownership notes, and in practice it is the large number of these units that cause other people to act in specific ways. A huge number of these "futures" purchased cause other people to act in a different way than a small number of these "futures" purchased. That is a general but factual description of how the crime is committed. The media outlet claims that Wall Street is only interested in using money to gain more money. How can that be? Wall Street can add zeros to their accounts at will, whenever they want more money they can simply add zeros, if Wall Street includes The Federal Reserve - and failing to know if The Federal Reserve is connected to Wall Street is a huge failure. Wall Street is connected to The Federal Reserve, and the paper trail proves it, the connection is the dollar unit of legal money. Where does Wall Street go when Wall Street "borrows" money? Who loans Wall Street more money? How much does the lender charge Wall Street for a loan of more money? Where does The Federal Reserve go when it needs more money to loan to Wall Street? Wall Street isn't interested in more money. People desire more power, and then people (Wall Street people) use power to gain more power. If people have enough power, then people can use that power to starve millions. Starving people are people who have less power. Starving people are people who will pay more, and more, and more, and more of their remaining power to get food, so that starving people don't become dead people. People act differently when they are starving. Do you think, even for a minute, that Wall Street doesn't know this fact? The purchase of "futures" sets about a chain reaction whereby other people act in different ways compared to a process of life whereby the "futures" were not purchased. A. Life goes on as usual (Wheat prices at $3 per bushel. B. The decision to buy "futures" causes the price to go up to $20 Futures purchases cause life to change. A big purchase of futures causes life to change in a big way. Power, including food power, flows one way when "futures" are not purchased. Power, including food power, flows another way when "futures" are purchased. The solution proposed in the media link was to control the flow of Wheat production so as to avoid the starvation of millions - because Wheat production was controlled in such a way as to cause the starvation of millions. Is that true or not true? Now moving onto the second link, involving another type of "Futures" market: Suppose a name was published on many media sources and the name for this person is John Doe Wall Street. John has a home in New York, and a phone number, perhaps John has a Facebook page too. Now suppose that John Doe Wall Street confessed, openly, to having ordered the purchase of all those futures that lead to all that starvation. Now there is a name of a real person, public knowledge, and this person knowingly, willfully, and proudly caused the starvation of millions so as to gain more power by that willful act. Again, John Doe Wall Street doesn't do this for money, since John Doe Wall Street can add as many zeros to his account whenever he wants, he just calls up The Fed, and more zeros are added to his account. John Doe Wall Street does this act so as to lessen the power of many of his potential rivals, as the power game goes, this is what the game is, and John Doe Wall Street confesses openly for all to see. That won't happen, not often, and not "under oath", but suppose it did, so as to connect the first link to the second link. Now suppose that you and I, and everyone else on the planet has a new power given to us, or a new power that we take for ourselves as we decide to buy futures concerning John Doe Wall Street. This power we have, I must say, will be as criminal in principle as the power given to, or taken by, John Doe Wall Street. John Doe Wall Street takes the power to buy futures and then John Doe Wall Street uses that power to do things - such as starve millions of people. You and I, and millions of people, take the power of futures and we use that power to do things, things we want done – for some reason. The reader has to read the link. This link: http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/jimbellap.htm If many people buy a ticket, a debt note, a future, and these notes are claims held by the owners, whereby the death of John Doe Wall Street will cause a lot of power to move to one person from many people, then such a process is the same type of crime as the one ordered into existence by John Doe Wall Street. The accumulation of a huge pile of money into one account can cause people to act differently if people can do things that cause that huge pile of money to be their own account, their money, and their power to purchase just about anything, when the pile of money is really huge. How much power does the person have, the one person, who is in charge of The Federal Reserve when he (or she) can merely add zeros to his (or her) legal dollar account? Armed with an infinite number of dollars, what other power can such a person gain when that huge pile of money is employed in the work of gaining more power from other people?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Jul 21st, 2010 08:32 am |
|
205th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north868.html
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Jul 21st, 2010 08:40 am |
|
206th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25967.htm
Read: How can more power be made to flow from the victims to the legal criminals?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Jul 23rd, 2010 03:51 pm |
|
207th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/luongo7.1.1.html
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Jul 28th, 2010 09:29 am |
|
208th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north870.html Why does someone, anyone, or any group of people, anywhere find that they are suddenly able to add zeros to their own bank accounts? How many would you add to your account if you happen to find yourself in the same place at the same time? There you are, just like those guys, you can turn your 10,000 dollar account into 100,000 dollars, by adding one little zero. Add two. How about adding 100 zeros? Here is a quote from the link: There was an outflow of gold from the Bank of England. Speculators thought the price of gold in pounds would have to be officially hiked. To keep this outflow from forcing the Bank of England to suspend payment, thereby confirming the forecasts of the speculators, the head of the Bank of England met with the head of the New York Federal Reserve in 1926 and persuaded him to inflate the dollar, so as not to make the dollar too valuable in relation to the pound. This would have caused investors to sell pounds and buy dollars. The U.S. government would then have sent pounds to Britain and asked for payment in gold. The New York FED did what the Bank of England asked. It inflated the dollar. The result was the stock market boom from 1926–1929. Here is another quote: Here, his tools of analysis fail him. Price deflation is no more a threat than emergency surgery is when someone has gangrene. Price deflation is the readjustment of prices to reflect the true conditions of supply and demand. But his outlook is universal, except inside Austrian School circles. That is where Gary North, the author of the piece, is sadly in error. It is an elitist error, an error of ignorance and stupidity to assume such a thing. One example of one other person who isn't in either of the two "schools" is me, and then there is Al to consider too. How about a list of people who are not framed in by Gary North's boundaries? Joe Kelley Albert Einstien Josiah Warren Stephen Pearl Andrews Lysander Spooner William Greene I'm sure there are more.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Aug 12th, 2010 05:15 am |
|
209th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north875.html
Listen people to significant things, please. Doubling the money supply is significant. In time that increase in the supply of money is the same thing as doubling the price of everything or more to the point it is the same thing as cutting the value of the dollar unit in half. That cutting in half of the value of each dollar (by doubling the supply of money) assumes that the new money is not increasing or decreasing the production of new valuable things that people will buy or exchange for that money (the dollar in this case). Example: If that money is used to bomb Iran into the stone age (with nuclear weapons on the table) and then all the oil in Iran is stolen and sold to consumers using dollars, then theoretically the value of the dollar would not be cut in half because the supply of barrels of oil would increase. To see that clearly use simple math. Suppose that Iran has enough oil to equal the amount of dollars (the supply of dollars) before that supply of dollars doubled. Now the legal criminals double the supply of dollars and with those dollars they buy all that oil (instead of stealing it by torturing and mass murdering Iranians). Now dollar consumers have twice the amount of dollars but dollar consumers also have twice the amount of oil or at least the dollar consumers have increased the supply of oil in proportion to the increase in the supply of dollars. If you don't see how the math works then know by experience what happens to the price of gasoline at the pump when there isn't enough oil for the consumers to buy. If you know that the price of oil goes up when oil becomes scarce, then you know, even if you don't think about it, that the price of oil drops when oil is "flowing like water". If someone buys twice the supply of oil that dollar users consume, then oil prices can drop to half the price by that increase in the supply of oil. If at the same time the supply of dollars doubled, then the value of the dollar is cut in half at the same time that the price of oil is cut in half. The net change is zero. Oil prices drop by half at the same time as the value of the dollar goes down by half, the net result is that you have to work just as hard to exchange your work for a gallon of gasoline. Meanwhile, though, Iranians are tortured and mass murdered, and all the people who have the power to double the number of dollars gain power, because that is why they do that, and all the people who have the power to move armies to Iran (or Iraq or Afghanistan) gain power, if they "win". If they lose, they still gain power, since they hedge their bets, but that is another story.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Aug 12th, 2010 08:26 am |
|
210th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.lewrockwell.com/daughty/mogambo62.1.html
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Aug 12th, 2010 08:55 am |
|
211th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Discussing the 1857 financial crisis, Marx showed how unthinkable anything like the 2008-09 Bush-Obama bailout of financial speculators appeared in his day. “The entire artificial system of forced expansion of the reproduction process cannot, of course, be remedied by having some bank, like the Bank of England, give to all the swindlers the deficient capital by means of its paper and having it buy up all the depreciated commodities at their old nominal values.” [15] Marx wrote this reductio ad absurdum not dreaming that it would come true in autumn 2008 as the U.S. Treasury paid off all of A.I.G.’s gambles and other counterparty “casino capitalist” losses at taxpayer expense, followed by the Federal Reserve buying junk mortgage packages at par. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26131.htm
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Sep 25th, 2010 09:23 pm |
|
212th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north888.html
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Sep 29th, 2010 11:36 am |
|
213th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/galland19.1.html
All the talk published in the world on money can be discriminated accurately into two categories, of which most is in category A. A. Monopoly or "legal monopoly" money B. Not A An easy way to accomplish the task of accurately discriminating the "talk" is to "follow the money". If the money talked about is produced by a legal entity, and enforced by a legal entity, then the "talk" is in category A. Category B is the only place a person can go if the person desires knowledge concerning money, so as to be in a position to employ money, rather than being in a position to be subject to money. If you don't know what I mean, then you are probably subject to money - and very poor by that measure. I can explain in detail. No one wants to know, because: A. They like being poor B. They already know (and it's a secret)
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Oct 14th, 2010 01:56 pm |
|
214th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article23387.html
Maybe I’ve got this all wrong but here is the way it seems to me. Going into 2009, the Fed had $700 billion to $800 billion on their balance sheet. The holdings were mostly Treasuries. Through the early months of 2009, they bought $1.75 trillion dollars of ‘toxic illiquid asset’ debt from America’s biggest banks. Where did the Fed get the money for the purchases? The conjured it from our Treasury, of course. So now the ‘toxic illiquid assets’ are ‘maturing’ or defaulting. If the garbage is maturing, the original notes are getting paid and the Fed is accumulating cash in place of the notes. If the garbage is defaulting, the Fed is losing money. If the Fed is getting repaid on the garbage, and they got the original money from the Treasury in the first place, shouldn’t they then return the money to the Treasury so the US government can pay down debt? If the Fed is losing money, isn’t that the chance they took? I guess that’s not the way a ‘stick up’ works!
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Oct 15th, 2010 12:37 pm |
|
215th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26600.htm
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26595.htm That means, the Fed has to persuade people they've “lost it” and are planning to destroy the currency via the printing presses. It's all baloney. The Fed won't destroy the dollar. They just want to use the element of surprise to give the economy a good jolt. Gold bugs think the Fed is steering the country towards hyperinflation, but they're mistaken. It's all part of a larger calculation.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Oct 16th, 2010 07:44 am |
|
216th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north895.html
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Oct 16th, 2010 08:18 am |
|
217th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/rosenberg-p1.1.1.html
http://www.rand.org/pubs/rgs_dissertations/RGSD127/sec2.html 
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Oct 25th, 2010 12:40 pm |
|
218th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rogers-j/rogers-j122.html The people who can produce legal currency by adding zeros to their bank accounts at will have a problem, and that problem is called competition. The Chinese government has that power, and so does the American government. The American government sold that power to The Federal Reserve Company people - and they make the dollar. This may sound complicated but it is what it is and to fail this chore of understanding is to fail understanding NEWS like the link above - and to fail is to be subject to those who have not failed. It can help greatly to think in more personal terms before thinking in terms of China, The Federal Reserve, and America. Suppose you have the power to make dollars at will and no one else has that power. You alone can make as many dollars as you want, and anyone else who makes dollars is subject to jail time or worse when caught making dollars. In real physical terms you now have the legal power to produce purchasing power - as much as you want whenever you want. You may think I'm crazy at this point, but these are the facts, and from where I sit anyone who fails to know these facts are weak, very weak, very poor, and very much less powerful than someone who does know these facts - so what does someone looking at me as if I am crazy look to me? The Federal Reserve has this legal power to create purchasing power at will, they hold the legal license - anyone else is guilty of counterfeiting. What do you think, now that you know this, could be the governing factor controlling how much money the Federal Reserve produces? Before answering please look here (again for anyone who has already looked here): http://www.usdebtclock.org/ If you thought you had the right answer to the question concerning what governs the people at the Federal Reserve when they can and do produce as many dollars as their black hearts desire, and you thought your right answer was something alone the lines of common sense, whereby the good people at the Federal Reserve use common sense to govern themselves as they make more and more dollars then you are wrong. The people at the Federal Reserve are criminals, legal criminals, and the power went to their heads, they destroy the goose that lays the golden eggs and that National Debt clock measures that destruction in a very easy to read and very accurate way. Read it and weep - while knowing that for every dollar of debt there is someone who is owed that dollar. Who owes whom? Who is supposed to receive all those dollars of debt? What will those people do with all that money once they receive all that money from the people who owe all that money (purchasing power)? I'm going to post this here and there and then return to writing so as to sound bite the message here.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Oct 25th, 2010 12:56 pm |
|
219th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Returning back to the personal, at home, reality check look, to make this grand idea into something more personal, where you pretend to have this power to make legal currency, legal money, now, now add another person, and this other person is a neighbor, and this other person has also gained this license to make legal money, and we can call this other person China. You pretend to be The Federal Reserve, and now you pretend that there is another person with the legal power to make as much legal purchasing power and this person is called China. You make dollars. China makes Yuan Renminbi, CNY Here is an exchange rate web page: http://www.x-rates.com/cgi-bin/hlookup.cgi You, The Fed, have a competitor in the business of producing unlimited purchasing power, to buy wars, to buy diamond mines in Africa, to buy politicians in El Salvador, whatever your black heart desires. What on earth stops you from buying up all that you ever dreamed of buying, or ever could dream of buying, so as to secure your license to keep producing legal purchasing power - what stops you in your tracks? Think about it, in this way, when you read the NEWS I post - please.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Oct 26th, 2010 11:14 am |
|
220th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north897.html China and The Fed can make more purchasing power and with all such competitions the winner gains the most power. Who will win? That is the rock bottom base question - the gist of the story, among all the foreign jargon. Asia is booming, while things not Asian, things "Western" are busted - flat. No more American Dream for anyone but exceptions - roughly 10% of the population - while the rest are allowed to "eat cake" - as in "let them eat cake" which is a historical pronouncement of costly willful ignorance - the speaker may have lost her head soon after. If you think I'm on crack, check who made much of the things you own. Do they say "made in China"? Do you think that will change soon? What is made in America? I can offer an answer. The dollar. When the dollar is tied legally (enforced by a robust military) to Oil power, the dollar power is powerful. When the dollar is no longer enforced legally to Oil power - what happens? Gary North says nothing about the link between Oil and the Dollar. Gary North, despite failing to report on the key dollar backing feature, is an exceptional reporter on half of the big picture - money. While keeping the Oil backing variable in mind return back to the personalized look at what is happening as you pretend to be The Fed and someone else is pretended to be China. You can keep on creating more dollars, as much as your black heart desires, and you can buy whatever you wish, whenever you wish, up to a point. China can do the same. The point at which neither you or China can add more zeros to your money accounts is the point at which more zeros no longer add any more power to purchase, and the opposite occurs, and this fact remains a fact no matter how well or how poorly you understand it. If China buys new clean electric power generating plants, solar plants, wind plants, tidal wave plants, plants that turn human waste into electricity, and if China buys new factories that make electric cars, and solar panels for houses and business buildings, and if China buys fiber optic communication networks, and new roads, and mass transit, and state of the art hospitals, and if China buys more things that make wealth, or make making wealth less expensive, while you buy tanks, and mercenary troops, and if you finance both sides of a new war and stick all your troops in the middle of it, as China buys the things listed above, what do you think is going to happen with your power to make money out of thin air?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Current time is 06:08 pm | Page: ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 |
| Power Independence > Good News > Good News > It's the currency - STUPID! | Top |
