Originally posted by Metal BrainThis is why I normally don't use wiki as a source. That article is complete BS. What does it say at the top:
Here is something I clipped from this site.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_standard
__________________________________________________________
By acts of Congress in 1933[3]:
(1) the domestic economy was conspicuously taken off the gold standard; &
(2) less famously, the Treasury Department was empowered to issue paper currency redeemabl ...[text shortened]... looded the world in the Marshall Plan, in the Cold War, & in importation of foreign goods.
This article needs additional citations for verification.
I'd say. No silver certificates of $2 and/or $5 were issued in 1963.
Originally posted by Metal BrainThe shareholders are member banks. But yeah you got me. I don't know specifically which banks they are. What the hell does that prove?
No. It says larger denominations, not smaller as your link said. It is a direct contradiction.
I wouldn't be surprised if you could find out. Hell when you started this thread you didn't even know that banks were the shareholders. Now you know. Why don't you pick a regional Fed bank and see if you can come up with the names of banks that are members.
Sheesh.
Originally posted by Metal BrainAgain, they rebate all the income less expenses. That is a very far cry from the claim of your beloved MM which is that they are purely a private bank for private profit. Complete BS. What branch of the US government runs with zero funding? In 2005-2006 the amount needed to cover costs was 29% of revenue. That was essentially the cost to the US government of having a money supply.
So now you are saying it does not matter they do not rebate all of the money. Before you lied and said they gave it all back, now you change your story and say that 29% they keep is justified. I suppose I have no right to question if that amount is justified because you know what you are talking about and I should just accept it. How about an audit that ...[text shortened]... d gang up on me and insult me using the word liar repeatedly.
The double standards never end.
Originally posted by Metal BrainMetal, if you want to quote someone, I'd use someone other than the MM dude for fixing monetary policy. While not perfect, Ron Paul is a better source, even if he wants a return to the gold standard. Listen to what he has to say here on the Fed.
Does it matter?
Palynka and Telerion, quite rightly, have pointed out that the Fed has oversight by members of the gov that are part of it. But, consider these points regarding the information congress cant get from the Fed
Originally posted by no1marauderI recall in the MM thread you called uzless a dick for not accepting your wikipedia link as a proper source.
This is why I normally don't use wiki as a source. That article is complete BS. What does it say at the top:
This article needs additional citations for verification.
I'd say. No silver certificates of $2 and/or $5 were issued in 1963.
I could question your source of info as well. I've never heard of that website you provided before. How do I know it is true?
Originally posted by uzlessI have never supported full reserve banking as a solution. I have never said I support the solution as presented by the Money Masters. I have always been in favor of raising the Minimum reserve requirements to 20-25% while increasing the money supply of US notes at the same time to avoid deflation.
Metal, if you want to quote someone, I'd use someone other than the MM dude for fixing monetary policy. While not perfect, Ron Paul is a better source, even if he wants a return to the gold standard. Listen to what he has to say here on the Fed.
Palynka and Telerion, quite rightly, have pointed out that the Fed has oversight by members of the gov that ...[text shortened]... TkhwR_Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xeb2VnI7S4U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpQlB3f9Al4
Tel falsely claims I worship the MM film like it is my bible or something ridiculous like that. Don't believe his slander. I simply think the MM film gives some needed insight to central banking and how it evolved. Although I am impressed by the film and it's historical information I do not automatically defend every aspect of the film. Given how much information is packed into that film I am surprised more flaws have not been found in the film. Everybody makes mistakes.
The Money Masters is still a good source of information. Everybody learns something they did not know before by watching it.
By the way, I do support Ron Paul.
http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-03-25/ron-paul-audit-the-federal-reserve-2/
Originally posted by uzlessAll I have is a basic dial up connection, far too slow to download videos.
Metal, if you want to quote someone, I'd use someone other than the MM dude for fixing monetary policy. While not perfect, Ron Paul is a better source, even if he wants a return to the gold standard. Listen to what he has to say here on the Fed.
Palynka and Telerion, quite rightly, have pointed out that the Fed has oversight by members of the gov that ...[text shortened]... TkhwR_Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xeb2VnI7S4U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpQlB3f9Al4
I never quoted the MM dude for fixing monetary policy. You are mistaken.
Originally posted by Metal BrainThat's one reason why I opted for the broken up google versions. Plus if anyone wants to view the actual quotes it would suck to have to download the movie in its entirety just to see a quote in the last 20 min of the film.
All I have is a basic dial up connection, far too slow to download videos.
I never quoted the MM dude for fixing monetary policy. You are mistaken.
Originally posted by telerionPlus, if someone *other* than the Fed holds the debt, the Government still has to pay the interest ... and guess how much gets rebated to the Treasury then??
Again, they rebate all the income less expenses. That is a very far cry from the claim of your beloved MM which is that they are purely a private bank for private profit. Complete BS. What branch of the US government runs with zero funding? In 2005-2006 the amount needed to cover costs was 29% of revenue. That was essentially the cost to the US government of having a money supply.
Originally posted by telerionGood thinking.
That's one reason why I opted for the broken up google versions. Plus if anyone wants to view the actual quotes it would suck to have to download the movie in its entirety just to see a quote in the last 20 min of the film.
I bought the MM DVD 2 years ago, so I'm set there.
http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-03-25/ron-paul-audit-the-federal-reserve-2/
Originally posted by telerionWhat is your source of information?
Again, they rebate all the income less expenses. That is a very far cry from the claim of your beloved MM which is that they are purely a private bank for private profit. Complete BS. What branch of the US government runs with zero funding? In 2005-2006 the amount needed to cover costs was 29% of revenue. That was essentially the cost to the US government of having a money supply.
Did you provide a link before?
I would prefer the source of info to be the Fed Reserve if possible.
Originally posted by telerionThanks.
I did provide it. Here it is again.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/other/20060110a.htm
I notice it is for the year 2005. Are there other years of data available?
Also, I was reading about the board of governors and noticed it said this.
"Once appointed, Governors may not be removed from office for their policy views".
http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqbog.htm
What can they be removed from office for if not their views? Actions? Congress can remove them, right?