You posted it in [URL='https://www.metabunk.org/posts/10420[/URL]where you said the BoE was natinalised in "name and paper only", you highlighted the last sentence - "The Government must take courage and bring the Bank into real public ownership.", and you weer posting in response to me pointing out that het Boe had been nationalised and so could not be a private bank.
Why did you post it if not as evidence to defend your position?
And thanks for not actually ending the conversation
Come on lee. Out-of-context abbreviated quotes that refer to different things (unless you wrote the article) is a poor method of increasing common understanding.
You seem to be arguing simply for sport. Why are you actually here?
Come on lee. Out-of-context abbreviated quotes that refer to different things (unless you wrote the article) is a poor method of increasing common understanding.
You seem to be arguing simply for sport. Why are you actually here?
With respect, I beg to differ. It's absolutely in context. Post #33 I said 'what I write speaks for itself', then Mike's next submission, #36, says, 'I agree the article speaks for itself'. Add to that this constant insistence of my having claimed some particular words were contained in the article when I said no such thing and it's getting a bit irritating - hence the above post. It illustrates a lack of comprehension at best and it's a waste of time.
Why? To take issue with the heading of this thread and its content. I can't see that you can correctly say FDR's quote is 'debunked'. I think he knew what he was saying and it's pretty straightforward. Where's the 'bunk'?
Why? To take issue with the heading of this thread and its content. I can't see that you can correctly say FDR's quote is 'debunked'. I think he knew what he was saying and it's pretty straightforward. Where's the 'bunk'?
There may be very little to debunk here. But people who believe the Fed is part of some huge Elite conspiracy will point to this as evidence. So I think some context is important.
So I gave some context (including the entire letter, not previously available online) and some historical information. I discussed what the uncertainties were. Particularly who are these "elements", and what does it mean to "own" the government, in practical day-to-day terms. And if they own them, then what is the fight about?
the letter is an opinion piece, and nothing at all in it actually says the BoE is anything other than government owned. It laments the amount of transparency in some aspects, and thinks that more information shuold be made public.....but nowhere does it say that the BoE is actualy a private company.
really? so who does it tell us those power brokers really are? by name please, and how is it you can identify them from the letter?
And of course it STILL does nto say anything othe than the BoE is a governmetn owned entity that should be more transparent in its dealings.
This is just another case of you reading info into something that simply isn't there.
Hello!!! It's the Joos! They're in league with the Reptilian overlords from Zeta Rectili (sp?) Please try to keep up! It's been known for millenia that Joos have a finger in the pie with regards to banking. It's them Rothschilds, Goldbergs, Wienerschmidts etc. Haven't you read the Protocols of Zion? It's all laid out there, in horrifying detail how the Joos are taking over every thing. Next thing you know your daughter will marry one of them Joos doctors, lawyers and what have you. They have cornered the well paying jobs with their superior intelligence. Well, let me tell you, my daughter is going to marry a decent plumber!
I'm with you on this mr Oswald!
The bunk is the lack of context. I addressed the fact that there was little bunk if the quote itself in the original post:
So I gave some context (including the entire letter, not previously available online) and some historical information. I discussed what the uncertainties were. Particularly who are these "elements", and what does it mean to "own" the government, in practical day-to-day terms. And if they own them, then what is the fight about?
How can bunk be a lack of something? How can you remove something (de-bunk) that is not there? I suggest that you've used the term at the head of this thread to get more hits from people searching.
The context appears to be pretty clear to me: the context is FDR writing to a friend and colleague covering both personal and business matters. Within that correspondence he makes the remark that, well known to the writer and the recipient is the fact that the government has been owned by financial interests for some time. Guessing at the nuance and the detail of exactly what (who/how etc) he meant is just that, guessing.
I think FDR probably said exactly what he meant to say - it's just that it doesn't fit into your view of how you like things, so you're trying to re-frame it. It's my feeling that FDR was perfectly capable of speaking and thinking for himself and I doubt very much he'd appreciate your attempts to interpret something he wrote; presumably he thought with ample clarity and very little room for your 'interpretation'.
The problem is that we don't know what FDR meant. It's a comment in passing. The bunk is in the usage of the quote to support a world view of covert elite domination and conspiracy. It's similar to the debunking of JFK's quote about a "monolithic and ruthless conspiracy", except here we've got far less to go on.
Nobody doubts that JP Morgan had a lot of political power - but how much? And was he part of a larger homogenous conspiracy, or just one of several individuals? What aspects of government did he influence? How extensive is the "ownership". When FDR says they are fighting the bank, then what does that mean - fighting about what?
Context is important. But a lot of the context is unknown. Repeating the quote without the context, and without addressing the unknowns, that's the bunk.
The problem is that we don't know what FDR meant. It's a comment in passing. The bunk is in the usage of the quote to support a world view of covert elite domination and conspiracy. It's similar to the debunking of JFK's quote about a "monolithic and ruthless conspiracy", except here we've got far less to go on.
Nobody doubts that JP Morgan had a lot of political power - but how much? And was he part of a larger homogenous conspiracy, or just one of several individuals? What aspects of government did he influence? How extensive is the "ownership". When FDR says they are fighting the bank, then what does that mean - fighting about what?
Context is important. But a lot of the context is unknown. Repeating the quote without the context, and without addressing the unknowns, that's the bunk.
The context is not unknown at all, it is well set as I said above. The context is a correspondence between FDR and a friend/colleague, the statement is straightforward and not difficult to understand. The nuance and detail is lacking but you can only guess at that - just like anyone else. The context is apparent in every sense, and the basic statement is clear.
If context is as important as you are saying with regard to this, then I find it extraordinary that you think, in the context of 911 for example; that is: in the context of a terrorist attack and three huge buildings destroyed - in that context - you disagree that testing for explosives would be a logical, necessary step in any investigation. Clearly context there demands it, but you say it doesn't. So your commitment to 'context is important' only reaches as far as your beliefs?
How can elements in large financial centers own the government? What does that mean, in practical purposes? If one were to say that China owns the US government because of the large portion of US debt carried by China, then would that be the same thing?
The problem is that we don't know what FDR meant.... The bunk is in the usage of the quote to support a world view of covert elite domination and conspiracy.
Even someone who only reads the papers and has a walnut for a brain would probably hold this world view. The word you could begin to think about removing from the quote would be 'covert'. Note the revolving doors between Washington and Corporates.
Banks and bankers traded, and continue to trade, rubbish as 'product'; usury is their game. And giant Ponzi schemes. They got so greedy and so deep into their bullshit they went 'tits-up', as we say. The biggest bank robbery in history has been perpetrated, but not on a bank, by the banks and on the people. In this country the public are expected to take the pain for the £83 billiion 'deficit' in the 'budget' - roughly the same amount as is 'legally' avoided by the banks in tax every year. The most humane aspects of a civilised country - welfare and public services - are being slashed to pay the 'deficit' and foot the bill for the disgusting behaviour of corrupt and criminal organisations known as banks ....One year after the 2008 'crash', and billions in 'bail-outs' and ongoing 'insurance' funded by the public, the banks were posting record profits and bonuses....champagne all round?
Nah, it's obvious the banks don't run the show along with their criminal friends in the corporates and government. And they never have. Where on earth have you been?
I wouldn't disagree with the general trust of that. I know there's a lot of corruption in government and corporations, and the "revolving door" is quite horrific.
However I'm still unclear what it means for the banks (or rather this "financial element") to "own" the government. That suggest an adversarial relationship, especially as FDR goes on to discuss the government "fighting" the banks. Yet you portray it as the banks, the government, and corporations all being in bed together? Is that really what FDR is saying?
Nobody is suggesting that everything is above board. The discussion is about what the quote means.
The Federal Reserve is audited, the complaint is that it's not audited deeply enough. Bernie Saunders has been championing legislation to increase the amount of transparency, and has had some success:
The first top-to-bottom audit of the Federal Reserve uncovered eye-popping new details about how the U.S. provided a whopping $16 trillion in secret loans to bail out American and foreign banks and businesses during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. An amendment by Sen. Bernie Sanders to the Wall Street reform law passed one year ago this week directed the Government Accountability Office to conduct the study. "As a result of this audit, we now know that the Federal Reserve provided more than $16 trillion in total financial assistance to some of the largest financial institutions and corporations in the United States and throughout the world," said Sanders. "This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you're-on-your-own individualism for everyone else."[FONT=Tahoma, Verdana, sans-serif]Among the investigation's key findings is that the Fed unilaterally provided trillions of dollars in financial assistance to foreign banks and corporations from South Korea to Scotland, according to the GAO report. "No agency of the United States government should be allowed to bailout a foreign bank or corporation without the direct approval of Congress and the president," Sanders said.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma, Verdana, sans-serif]Ron Paul, of course, wants to abolish the Fed, and so wants the most detailed audit possible, as it will increase the likelihood of finding embarrassing data. Like the above from Sanders, it's easy to pick some large figures, and misrepresent what they mean. Sanders makes it look like they gave trillions of dollars away in secret. The figure likely comes from adding up all the short term loans over a period of time.
Personally I'm strongly in favor of transparency in government. But I don't think the unwillingness of the Fed to change their practices is indicative of some vast conspiracy. They would simply rather keep doing things as they always have. [/FONT]
Nobody is suggesting that everything is above board. The discussion is about what the quote means.
The Federal Reserve is audited, the complaint is that it's not audited deeply enough. Bernie Saunders has been championing legislation to increase the amount of transparency, and has had some success:
The first top-to-bottom audit of the Federal Reserve uncovered eye-popping new details about how the U.S. provided a whopping $16 trillion in secret loans to bail out American and foreign banks and businesses during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. An amendment by Sen. Bernie Sanders to the Wall Street reform law passed one year ago this week directed the Government Accountability Office to conduct the study. "As a result of this audit, we now know that the Federal Reserve provided more than $16 trillion in total financial assistance to some of the largest financial institutions and corporations in the United States and throughout the world," said Sanders. "This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you're-on-your-own individualism for everyone else."Among the investigation's key findings is that the Fed unilaterally provided trillions of dollars in financial assistance to foreign banks and corporations from South Korea to Scotland, according to the GAO report. "No agency of the United States government should be allowed to bailout a foreign bank or corporation without the direct approval of Congress and the president," Sanders said.
Ron Paul, of course, wants to abolish the Fed, and so wants the most detailed audit possible, as it will increase the likelihood of finding embarrassing data. Like the above from Sanders, it's easy to pick some large figures, and misrepresent what they mean. Sanders makes it look like they gave trillions of dollars away in secret. The figure likely comes from adding up all the short term loans over a period of time.
Personally I'm strongly in favor of transparency in government. But I don't think the unwillingness of the Fed to change their practices is indicative of some vast conspiracy. They would simply rather keep doing things as they always have.
"Federal Reserve provided more than $16 trillion in total financial assistance to some of the largest financial institutions and corporations in the United States and throughout the world," said Sanders. "This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you're-on-your-own individualism for everyone else.""
the CEO of JP Morgan Chase served on the New York Fed's board of directors at the same time that his bank received more than $390 billion in financial assistance from the Fed
I wouldn't disagree with the general trust of that. I know there's a lot of corruption in government and corporations, and the "revolving door" is quite horrific.
However I'm still unclear what it means for the banks (or rather this "financial element") to "own" the government. That suggest an adversarial relationship, especially as FDR goes on to discuss the government "fighting" the banks. Yet you portray it as the banks, the government, and corporations all being in bed together? Is that really what FDR is saying?
Letter to Edward M. House
Warm Springs, November 21, 1933
My dear Friend:
Dan showed me your letter, and the next day I sent for the Sprague person. To tell you the honest truth I had had no intention of hurting Sprague's feelings by not sending for him, but equally honestly I did not send for him because of the very simple reason that I had entirely forgotten his existence for at least a month.
On several occasions after his return from London, I had long talks with him and tried to get from him some concrete proposal or suggestion which would help us to lift the price level and therefore the debt burden under which the Country, especially the West and South, was staggering. He gave me me absolutely no constructive thought— only the same old suggestions about open market purchases and stabilization of the dollar with the pound. Everyone who is not blind knows that the open market purchases have practically no immediate effect and only a very doubtful long-range effect; also that every time stabilization on the old level of about $4.50 was mentioned, cotton, wheat, corn and everything else started to go down. A continuation of the fall of the price level which ran from the middle of September to the middle of October would have brought the whole Recovery Program toppling about our ears.
Sprague is a nuisance. He carries no real weight except with the Bank of England crowd and some of our New York City bankers, and I regard his suggestion of a meeting as absolutely disloyal. In any event, I kept him from formally delivering a silly letter to me, had Woodin talk with him and subsequently Morgenthau, Jr. Sprague has said that if he resigned, Government bonds would go down five points! Now let me tell you something cheerful.
This Southland has a smile on its face. Ten cent cotton has stopped foreclosures, saved banks and started people definitely on the upgrade. That means all the way from Virginia to Texas. Sears-Roebuck sales in Georgia are 110 per cent above 1932.
Another angle: Hugh Johnson has just telephoned me to be sure to read the latest Dun & Bradstreet Report. He says every section of the country is showing definite gain.
I had a nice talk with Jack Morgan the other day and he and he seemed more worried about Tugwell's speech than about anything else, especially when Tugwell said, "From now on property rights and financial rights will be subordinated to human rights." J.P.M. did not seem much troubled over the gold purchasing, and confessed that he had been completely misled in regard to the Federal expenditures. The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson— and I am not wholly excepting the Administration of WW — The country is going through a repetition of Jackson's fight with the Bank of the United Stated - only on a far bigger and broader basis. I am having a grand rest and am catching up on much needed sleep. Take care of yourself and do write me soon
Funnily enough, this quote from MikeC isn't a bad analogy at all:
Does this mean "owned" in the way that I own a car? No it doesn't of course.
If I could run with that - and not to forget this is all conjecture, obviously.
The govt is a large limousine with blacked out windows in the back. Driving the car is FDR, we can see him because he's up front. FDR is a figure representing the visible part of govt. - the politicians and their secretaries, advisors etc. (though the advisors can jump between the front and back seats, and do). In the back seat, and for the most part invisible to the public, are Jack Morgan, a Rockefeller or two, a Rothschild or two, DuPont, Remington etc (it's a big limo). Sprague is one of those characters who operates between the front and back seats -
Dan showed me your letter, and the next day I sent for the Sprague person. To tell you the honest truth I had had no intention of hurting Sprague's feelings by not sending for him, but equally honestly I did not send for him because of the very simple reason that I had entirely forgotten his existence for at least a month.
On several occasions after his return from London, I had long talks with him and tried to get from him some concrete proposal or suggestion which would help us to lift the price level and therefore the debt burden under which the Country, especially the West and South, was staggering. He gave me me absolutely no constructive thought— only the same old suggestions about open market purchases and stabilization of the dollar with the pound. Everyone who is not blind knows that the open market purchases have practically no immediate effect and only a very doubtful long-range effect; also that every time stabilization on the old level of about $4.50 was mentioned, cotton, wheat, corn and everything else started to go down. A continuation of the fall of the price level which ran from the middle of September to the middle of October would have brought the whole Recovery Program toppling about our ears.
Sprague is a nuisance. He carries no real weight except with the Bank of England crowd and some of our New York City bankers, and I regard his suggestion of a meeting as absolutely disloyal. In any event, I kept him from formally delivering a silly letter to me, had Woodin talk with him and subsequently Morgenthau, Jr. Sprague has said that if he resigned, Government bonds would go down five points! Now let me tell you something cheerful.
The above part of the correspondence deals with this Sprague character. It appears from what FDR is saying 1) that Sprague is not a figure well liked by FDR and 2) that Sprague is trying to push him towards (through 'several long talks', meaning that he has, for the most part, unfettered access to the President's office) 'the same old suggestions about open market purchases and stabilization of the dollar with the pound'. FDR thinks that the debt burden will not be eased by such action and rejects it as he believes it would scupper the recovery which his current figures are saying is moving in the right direction. He then appears to indicate that Sprague is only influential among bankers and that there might have been a vague hint of a threat in 'Sprague has said that if he resigned, Government bonds would go down five points!' During this, Sprague is riding up front with FDR - every now and then he leans into the back and takes instructions. FDR is driving and wants to keep going straight - Sprague is trying to persuade him to turn off and take another route. It all indicates there is at least some kind of struggle going on for which direction to take.
Now for the meat course:
I had a nice talk with Jack Morgan the other day and he and he seemed more worried about Tugwell's speech than about anything else, especially when Tugwell said, "From now on property rights and financial rights will be subordinated to human rights." J.P.M. did not seem much troubled over the gold purchasing, and confessed that he had been completely misled in regard to the Federal expenditures. The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson— and I am not wholly excepting the Administration of WW — The country is going through a repetition of Jackson's fight with the Bank of the United Stated - only on a far bigger and broader basis. I am having a grand rest and am catching up on much needed sleep. Take care of yourself and do write me soon
That FDR had a 'nice' talk with Jack Morgan is quite interesting and I'll come to that. But again, he has the ear of the President - and I'm sure they didn't just have the one talk.
That Morgan seemed more worried about Tugwell's speech than anything else isn't surprising - Tugwell said something contrary to Morgan's interests in "From now on property rights and financial rights will be subordinated to human rights." That's pretty clear.
This bit is far more interesting:
J.P.M. did not seem much troubled over the gold purchasing, and confessed that he had been completely misled in regard to the Federal expenditures. The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson— and I am not wholly excepting the Administration of WW — The country is going through a repetition of Jackson's fight with the Bank of the United Stated - only on a far bigger and broader basis.
I think the first sentence is quite important here - for the context on what follows - FDR indicates that Morgan wasn't too bothered about gold purchasing and says he was misled about Federal expenditure. FDR, in the next sentence appears to give the lie to that, ie. he is gently indicating that Morgan was lying, playing dumb, not being honest for some reason. Because he then says: The real truth of the matter is... which would indicate some degree of doubt around Morgan's input, if not Morgan himself... as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson - I think the larger centres are the ones previously referred to, London and New York, they were and they still are the larger centres (of financial activity). Andrew Jackson famously warned that a repetition of allowing a private bank to own the presses was a route to a more modern day slavery for the general population.
The country is going through a repetition of Jackson's fight with the Bank of the United States - only on a far bigger and broader basis.
This gets us back in the car. FDR is at the wheel and the big boys are in the back. The big boys own the car and generally dictate the route, but they've given the driver's job to someone with his own idea of the best route. There's not an awful lot the guys in the back can do to the all too visible driver if he decides to go straight on instead of left, as they required him to. An argument - a fight - will ensue. FDR understands that his car is owned by those riding in the back, and that he is but a stepping stone along the way - his driver's job is limited by the factor of time. The fight is a power struggle and it is on a far bigger and broader basis than Jackson's as a result of the development of the financial sector and its influence (much greater than in 1865) now becoming more global and integrated. The financial sector had gained, and was gathering, force and influence - power. It appears the struggle/fight whatever you want to call it, was for the levers of power over policy. At this juncture there was still a fight to be had - those days are over. That fight was lost by the government - maybe it's about time for a new one?
And there's something related below:
Jack Morgan. JP Morgan was one of several mega-wealthy co-conspirators in an attempted coup plot against FDR in 1934. They were great mates with the Nazis and wanted to install a Nazi style govt in the US. Prescott Bush, W's grandaddy, also became one of those. An investigative journalist by the name of John Buchanan was the first to go to the Library of Congress and uncover the documents that confirm it - along with the Bush family's Nazi money laundering business which continued even after the US had entered the war. The plotters made the mistake of asking a General Smedley Butler (from memory) to lead the coup and he stuck around long enough to find out who the plotters were and then he went to Congress and blew the whistle. Not one of the plotters was prosecuted, nor even questioned by Congress. They should have been tried for treason. Go figure.
How can elements in large financial centers own the government? What does that mean, in practical purposes? If one were to say that China owns the US government because of the large portion of US debt carried by China, then would that be the same thing?
I think one needs to remember the context is a letter to a friend, not a public statement.
How they own the govt? Like you own a limousine. For practical purposes? obviously more complex and not micro-managed, but driving policy. Politics is subordinated to economics.
China's financial relationship with the US is different. It's a symbiosis which could be lethal to either or both [edit - actually, not so different there!]. If China says you can't have any more cash, then the US will say, you ain't getting your loan back then. What would China do? Invade the US? Give it 20 years or so....At the moment it's a simple moneylender v money ower, only the ower has a much bigger stick than the lender, which is quite unusual. Financial 'interests' go so much more sophisticated than that in the terms of what FDR is talking about, I think.
I think perhaps the primary disagreement is one of degree. Few people would doubt that the very wealthy, and bankers in particular (and or those JP Morgan in particular) have had an influence on politics. Where we differ though is to what degree that affects what the government does (and ultimately to what degree it affects the common man).
I think perhaps the primary disagreement is one of degree. Few people would doubt that the very wealthy, and bankers in particular (and or those JP Morgan in particular) have had an influence on politics. Where we differ though is to what degree that affects what the government does (and ultimately to what degree it affects the common man).
So then Mick, what do you say to the below from CNBC which features several CNBC guests and regulars from the world of finance point blank saying that we're slaves to the Central Banks (like the Federal Reserve which is a privately owned entity and not government run/controlled in any way save for the president nominating the chairman) and or that it’s the bankers (along with the policy makers who work for the banks) who control things and not the market? BTW – If you have already addressed this particular CNBC segment then my apologies as I did not see that post.
With respect, I beg to differ. It's absolutely in context. Post #33 I said 'what I write speaks for itself', then Mike's next submission, #36, says, 'I agree the article speaks for itself'.
Add to that this constant insistence of my having claimed some particular words were contained in the article when I said no such thing and it's getting a bit irritating - hence the above post. It illustrates a lack of comprehension at best and it's a waste of time.
I have NEVER claimed that you claimed some particular words were contained in the article.
I have consistently asked what it is in the article supports your contention that the BoE is a private bank. You provided it as part of your supporting case for that statement and so I did ask which words it is that supports that - but I have never said that you claimed there were particular words.
You have consistently misrepresented what I have asked for - your latest quote miningbeing just another example.
You know that you have no actual evidence for your claim thaht et BoE and the fed are both "private banks" and you are shifting the goal posts with your "outrage" over me calling you out on that, rather than manning up and either justifying or modifying your claim into somethign that is actually defensible.
Shrug - changing the tactic and attacking the questioner are a common tactics from a particular sort of conspiracy theorist - that being one without the guts to admit he 9or she) is wrong.
I say that they are using the term "slaves" figuratively. Sure central bank policy has a big impact on the markets, but then so do market events, earnings, mergers and acquisitions, legislation.
The entire first half of that interview (which was left off) is all about trading on the effects of "Omabacare". So clearly they don't think the central banks are controlling that market (unless you think that Obamacare is all part of some banker plot to manipulate the market)
The second half of the interview kicks off from discussion of the European Central Bank, and the Euro crisis, where obviously central banks have a big role.
And then they finish with saying they thing the free market will fight back, which does not sound like they think the banks have an iron grip, but more like they think it's just overly represented in market movements.
First we begin with stocks ending the week on a high note,rebounding from the second biggest one-day sell-off this year. if you think you needed dramamine this week, next week could be even more -- fun, it says right here. seema mody and brian shaktman have it covered for us. seema a? it was a volatile week with jamie dimon's testimony on tuesday. the fomc meeting on wednesday and economic data points on thursday, not to mention s downgrading credit ratings of 15 global banks.today some good news from our friends on the other side of thepond. health stocks closed in the green. the european central bank said it would take steps. the finance minister of spain said the government would ask for aid for troubled banks. today's gains lifted the nasdaq back into the black for the week. tech stocks led the gains, technology being the best performing s&p sector for the week. the nasdaq closing higher, better than 1%.concerns about a global slow down did weigh on commoditiesthroughout the week. commodities for the most part recovered after yesterday's steep slide. traders telling me short covering.oil bouncing off of the eight-month low. crude futures getting a lift as well. that's a wrap of how markets fared this week. we have an important week ahead. investors are bracing for it. brian shactman has the details. the most newsworthy item. it will be fascinating to watch how health care stocks trade on the back of that potentially historic decision. the fear that the heads of statemeeting in brussels won't come to an a agreement. we have important data including numbers for new and pen pendinghome sells and first quarter gdp. how much of a slow down are we dealing with? we'll know more next week. back to you.thank you very much. let's turn to our investors breaking down their battle plans for the next week. jim iorio and jim le camp join us. welcome to you both. john batchelor will play with us in a minute and join in. jim lecamp, let me ask you aboutobamacare. we expect a decision as early as monday or it may be later in the week. what do you expect and how should i position my holdings, particularly in health care, hospitals, drugs with that in mind? i agree with what jim cramer said. if they say this is unconstitutional i think y will get a short-term rally in the markets led by the health care stocks, particularlypharmaceuticals rallying recently. they continue the rally. if the supreme court says it is constitutional, i think it adds to pressures and concerns on the market and the market sells off.we are postured defensively here.
if the ecb doesn't come with a ba zoo ka that could be a bigger risk. investors need to be cautious here. does it seem the ecb andthe european ministers, mostly they hold summits? i think that rig now the question is do we all work for the central bankers? that's what i want to address to guests tonight. is this global governance at last? is it one world? the central bankers in charge? you say we have down side, a correction in the markets. fine. aren't we all just living and dying for what the central banks do? aren't we all counting on the fact that there is a bernanke put and we won't go lower than, say, 5% down from here? of course we are. if we look at the economic data there is nothing to get excited about in that.so yesterday we saw reluctance for the bernanke fed to expandthe balance sheets and pump money in. the stock market knows reluctance is different from not willing to do it at all. we saw oil implode and gold trade off heavily because they are not a protected class. if the stock market trades off in the 10 to 15 to 20% area the chairman will slow stimulus at it. to answer your question we are slaves to central bannde'd love to be slaves to the economy omic numbers do nothing but trend lower. lacamp, do we work for central bankers? we do. markets are driven by policy, not market forces. they are driven by fiscal cliffs, by central bank proclamations, by false rumors coming out of the ecb. currency continually watered down. they continue to water it down so markets go up and we feel go it. yeah. listen to what the fed did this weekend. they really screwed up here. they said we're going to do this operation twist through the end of the year. they're going to create uncertainty about what happensafter operation twist at the same time the fiscal cliff kicks in. do we want that uncertainty? we have to give a break here. the fed realizes what they are doing is probably going to have little economic effect. the only thing that can help is fiscal and policy changes. right. so all they have is rocks and stones left. they're going to throw them. they know they probably won't do any good. gentlemen -- we know there will be qe-3, ultimately.that's what i'm banking on. i love what you said about the idea --ultimately there will be. jim lacamp. i'm not sure which one said it, but basically we are beholden to what bankers and policy makers do. absolutely. we have not been able to generate real growth without doing one of two things. that is debasing the currency or borrowing our way to a false prosperity. how do you invest under those circumstances? what's the question? how do you invest under those circumstances? oh, remember every central banker in the world, not just us has to devalue their currency. you've got to put your money in stuff. with good balance sheets to me is the world's tallest midget. every major country holds gold. that tells me that it's attractive. is it attractive to you with the watered down currency? it's very attractive as acurrency and a store of value. ultimately you want resources but volatility stays with us. investors need to get used to trimming what they don't like and having the portfolio on rallies and nibbling at what they do like on sell-offs. these aren't going away. the only good news is that free markets fight back. when we see bond riots in spain and italy those are free market forces fighting back. ultimately they win because investor wills walk away. i think i heard him say he likes gold. he did. i did. the two jims, thank you very much.
john, i was at a conference thisweek. one of the most persuasive investors said he felt what you have to do right now is buy things that are scarce. he said gold was scarce. gregates are scarce. tokyo real estate is scarce. that's where you make makeup in the low interest rate world. interesting point of view. risky assets? some. or low risk? some. i like cotton. all right. we have breaking news coming in
I think perhaps the primary disagreement is one of degree. Few people would doubt that the very wealthy, and bankers in particular (and or those JP Morgan in particular) have had an influence on politics. Where we differ though is to what degree that affects what the government does (and ultimately to what degree it affects the common man).
The degree is the nth. Politics is now subordinated to economics - of that there can be no doubt. No political consideration can be made without first seeing if economics will allow it. Economics is absurd abstract voodoo; it's created by human beings, yet no human being can really understand it. Economists can only tell you what has happened, never what will - and when they try, they're just guessing.
One only needs to watch tv news and behold that the screen is filled every single night with DowJones, FTSE 100, exchange rates, interest rates, inflation, deficits and debt figures...all those numbers sliding across your screen are there to tell you what? That your life has been taken over by this abstraction called economics. The system only survives because we all pretend it's real and it matters. The trouble is that the table is tilted, the game is rigged - it's been worked out that shortage or scarcity promotes value (eg. diamonds, gold etc) when these things have no intrinsic value at all. The fact that debt cannot ever be paid off because there isn't enough capital in the system to do that is all part of the same game. The scarcity of cash circulating ensures that people have to compete with one another to pull enough out of the system to survive, and that all the cash in the system represents a debt somewhere which has to be paid. When money is created in the fractional reserve system, it is based on a notion, not on the physical existence of that money. Money created this way now only 'exists' as debt and nothing else. The fact that the debt associated with this money creation is also subject to interest just makes matters even more absurd. Interest is yet more notional capital which can never exist in reality because it's over and above what exists in the system - and it in turn creates inflation which devalues that very same capital before it ever sees the light of day. It's an ever growing bubble, similar to a Ponzi scheme, and as such, it's guaranteed to go wrong. It's an absurd illusion and it runs, and ruins, lives.
The integration of govt and big business is virtually complete. The US, as an example, has for many many years been engaging in some kind of 'corporate Marxism' through its foreign aid program. Egypt under Mubarak, for one, was given something like $3billion each year to keep him sweet - but there's always a catch and the catch was that around 50% of that 'aid' had to be turned around and used to buy military equipment (not exclusively, but largely) from companies in the US! So the US govt gives taxpayers' money to a dictator, and then makes sure that he gives it back in doing business with US firms interested in making the machinery of war for a profit. This is repeated all over. Effectively, that money has been taken out of the US taxpayers' pockets and given to arms dealers. I'd say spend it on education, health care, more education....
Add to that this delusion that 'growth' is the way out of trouble. What a lot of dangerous nonsense that is. One needs to understand the exponential function in regard to this and realise that at some point this 'growth' business has got to stop. Are we going to wait until there's not a square metre of undeveloped land, till we're all choking to death and standing shoulder to shoulder before we realise that the earth is finite? Those who promote 'growth' as a sign of a 'healthy economy' are full of shit - they don't understand the exponential function and that what is required is stability and sustainability. The fact that this is not promoted indicates still further that those who aim to gain as much as possible in the short term (corporates, banks) are in control of the one driving the limousine.
You know, the 'common man's' life is dominated by decisions made at this level (all around the world, 'austerity' is inflicted to pay for the incompetence/crimes of bankers), and we are all subordinated to the will of the markets and their masters. I always thought a market was somewhere you could get stuff that was critical to your well-being, survival, day to day existence...now it's equal to an abstraction where people trade numbers attempting to profit. The whole thing is absurd, racked with corruption and greed, dishonesty and crime. Our 'elected representatives' no longer work for us (if they ever did), they work for their masters...the ones who line their pockets after they leave office. Look at the war criminal Tony Blair, for one. The synthesis of big business and govt is clearly visible in many cases such as Blair, who really should be in a court.
Add to that what I commented on above
Jack Morgan. JP Morgan was one of several mega-wealthy co-conspirators in an attempted coup plot against FDR in 1934. They were great mates with the Nazis and wanted to install a Nazi style govt in the US. Prescott Bush, W's grandaddy, also became one of those. An investigative journalist by the name of John Buchanan was the first to go to the Library of Congress and uncover the documents that confirm it - along with the Bush family's Nazi money laundering business which continued even after the US had entered the war. The plotters made the mistake of asking a General Smedley Butler (from memory) to lead the coup and he stuck around long enough to find out who the plotters were and then he went to Congress and blew the whistle. Not one of the plotters was prosecuted, nor even questioned by Congress. They should have been tried for treason. Go figure.
and it's not that hard to see, if such people can be caught in the act but suffer no consequences for such a serious charge, who's really in control. Above the law? Yes, clearly.
I agree with a lot of that, although we could quibble over details, but I think that that's emergent behavior rather than some monolithic long-term conspiracy.
It's interesting that you are a somewhat classic conspiracy theorist on 9/11, and yet you're in favor of sustainability. Most of the hard-core conspiracy theorists here think that "sustainability" is just code for communism/NWO. It's the Agenda 21 conspiracy. Maybe that's more of a US thing?
and it's not that hard to see, if such people can be caught in the act but suffer no consequences for such a serious charge, who's really in control. Above the law? Yes, clearly.
Indeed - but the truth is that no-one was "caught in the act" at all, and a Congressional committee found "....no evidence before it that would in the slightest degree warrant calling before it such men as John W. Davis, Gen. Hugh Johnson, General Harbord, Thomas W. Lamont, Admiral Sims, or Hanford MacNider." (from link below)
There is a great deal of information around about the Business Plot - there is no need to rely upon a clearly faulty memory.
Indeed - but the truth is that no-one was "caught in the act" at all, and a Congressional committee found "....no evidence before it that would in the slightest degree warrant calling before it such men as John W. Davis, Gen. Hugh Johnson, General Harbord, Thomas W. Lamont, Admiral Sims, or Hanford MacNider." (from link below)
There is a great deal of information around about the Business Plot - there is no need to rely upon a clearly faulty memory.
Didn't you want to finish that last conversation first? No? Thought not.
As usual, your one-stop research and lack of imagination comes up short. Wikipedia, the first item on the menu of the lazy.
If anyone chooses to look a bit harder than Mike did, then you can find this:
On Nov. 24, the committee completed the first phase of its inquiry, with additional corroborating evidence submitted by bank clerks who handled the accounts of the 'Sound Currency' group and those of Clark and Christmas.
On Nov. 26, the committee released an 8,000-word statement summarizing the testimony and providing details of the plot. In discussing the evidence, it showed that MacGuire swore several times his denial of the details of Butler's testimony about the expenditure of monies for purposes described in the general's testimony, only to have committee investigators substantiate each of the general's claims.
However,the attention of most of the press [and Mike C] focused on the first paragraph of the summary statement: This committee has had no evidence before it that would in the slightest degree warrant calling before it such men as John W. Davis, General Hugh Johnson, General James G. Harbord, Thomas W. Lamont, Admiral William S. Sims or Hanford MacNider. The committee will not take cognizance of names brought into testimony which constitutes mere hearsay. This committee is not concerned about premature newspaper accounts, when given and published prior to the taking of testimony.''
Context dear boy, context. So, the bit you quote out of context is part of a preliminary summation of the inquiry up to that date.
To cut a long story down to something manageable for you, a few months later came this
On Feb. 15, the committee published its findings in a report submitted to the House on its full investigation. The section dealing with the Butler testimony began with the following paragraphs:
In the last few weeks of the committee's official life, it received evidence that certain persons had made an attempt to establish a fascist organization in this country. No evidence was presented and this committee had none to show a connection between this effort and any fascist activity of any European country.
There is no question that these attempts were discussed, were planned, and might have been placed in execution when and if the financial backers deemed expedient.
The committee received evidence from Major General Smedley D. Butler (ret.), twice decorated by the Congress of the United States. He testified before the committee of conversations with one Gerald C. MacGuire in which the latter is alleged to have suggested the formation of a fascist army under the leadership of General Butler.
MacGuire denied these allegations under oath, but our committee was able to verify all the pertinent statements of General Butler, with the exception of the direct statement suggesting the creation of the organization. This however was corroborated in the correspondence of MacGuire with his principal, Robert Sterling Clark of New York, while MacGuire was abroad studying various forms of organizations of fascist character....''
The McCormack/Dickstein committee did then conclude that its findings confirmed a plot to seize the government of the United States by force, organized by interests whose control by Morgan and allied circles was already widely established.
What you really need to do is expand your reading.
How about this excerpt from FDR's 'Faith, Hope and Charity' speech, for a little more 'context'...?
Out of this modern civilization, economic royalists carved new dynasties. New kingdoms were built upon the concentration of control over material things. Through new uses of corporations, banks, and securities, new machinery of industry and agriculture, of labor and capital--all undreamed by the fathers--the whole structure of modern life was impressed into this royal service. There was no place among this royalty for our many thousands of small business men and merchants who sought to make worthy use of the American system of initiative and profit. They were no more free than the worker or the farmer. Even the honest and progressive-minded men of wealth, aware of their obligation to their generation, could never know just where they fitted into this dynastic scheme of things.
It was natural and perhaps human that the privileged princes of these new economic dynasties, thirsting for power, reached out for the control of the Government itself. They created a new despotism and wrapped it in the robes of legal sanction. In its service, new mercenaries sought to regiment the people, their labor, and their property. And as a result, the average man once more confronts the problem faced by the Minute Man....''
Against economic tyranny such as this, the American citizen could appeal only to the organized power of the Government...
The royalists of the economic order have conceded that political freedom was the business of the Government, but they have maintained that economic slavery was nobody's business. They granted that the Government could protect the citizen in his right to vote, but they denied that the Government could do anything to protect the citizen in his right to work and his right to live....
The economic royalists complain that we seek to overthrow the institutions of America. What they really complain about is that we seek to take away their power
I think what context-bangers above have trouble with is the sovereign power of government and by extension the people have in issuing their own currency without incurring debt to private bankers. This is the essence of private vs. public of a monetary system.
The revolutionary continental was public currency.
Lincoln issuing greenbacks was a public currency.
I think FDR's New Deal stuff was interest-free too?
But the FED system is definitely private because any dollar in circulation was at one time debt to a private bank that issued it from nothing and (important) without risk.
Because all new money created must be borrowed from banks, who then charge interest on this free money, the system is a private one and is a pyramidal ponzi scheme of perpetual interest payments to private bankers. Whats tragic is that because interest out-paces principal AND no new money can be created without debt, the banking system will always has fresh blood to suckle. The only thing public about it is, it allows govt to steal from dollar-holders to finance anything they want without real financial need or even public support. (wag the dog)
It's a pyramidal system of control by the few who run it and benefit off of it, by fiat.
------
Basically, with the FED Act, the govt willingly 'sold' itself to a financial oligarchy, so, the financial oligarchy centered in New York, City of London, and possibly backed by the Vatican gets to create paper money from nothing and charge interest payments on it. In turn, the banks allow the govt to shear the population through inflation. Whats more is IRiS income taxation is the physical bond that collateralizes the worth of an otherwise worthless piece of paper, enforcing it's monopoly. (because people must seek dollars to pay taxes, they do it through time-laden sweat equity(slavery) )
Hope I wasn't to wordy, but the first thing you need to realize is that a govt/people have the power to issue it's own debt-free currency. No nation, government, or people who allow private banks to issue and leverage a currency with state monopolistic protection is sovereign, but "owned" by banks. Receivership is another term to describe the US corporation's relationshit with the money power.
----
Conspiracy? Nah, what govt would want to have the power to steal from the public and be insulated from public will.
Surely the thing that makes bankers rich is fractional reserve banking, which is independent of the Fed? At least it's not contingent on the Fed existing, the Fed just regulates it.
Here's a handy jumping off point for people interested in this topic:
Although you really need to read all the topics listed in the See Also section to get a full grasp of it. I think reason why the money/debt/slavery Zeitgeist spin is so popular is that it's very complicated. I certain'y don't have a full grasp on it myself.
where are the large financial centers of the world or US for that matter... can we at least agree that FDR was talking about financial centers?
Second observation, FDR brings up Andrew Jackson which assumes City of London and international finance. Andrew Jackson was fighting whom at the time? Simply New York bankers, no don't be naive, the revolutionary war was fought over the control of issuance of money. Britain has never wavered from the model of controlling its issuance though cartels.
The country is going through a repetition of Jackson's fight with the Bank of the United Stated - only on a far bigger and broader basis.
I believe this illustrates my point pretty clearly. Bigger and broader can only mean collusion and cartel activity on the part of banks.
Rockefeller is quoted, "competition is a sin" now tell me that quote is a fake one too lol. It's hard to concretize such topics, but my gut feeling tells me that artificial scarcity enriches middlemen. The FED is simply the monetary version of artificial scarcity to benefit banks and bureaus and force the people to work for their benefit.
Did you post this thread to actually try to debunk us conspiracy pillow-huggers, or are you contented with posting a bunch of useless wikipedia links? I need to be told where my gut feeling betrays me.
also, by bringing up Woodrow Wilson, we can assume that the Federal Reserve has some culpability with this financier agenda.
When the FED issues money first to it's member banks it's called high powered money. Which can be multiplied several more times it's initial worth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_powered_money
10% Fractional reserve = $1000 deposit (they can loan $9 hundred)
High powered FED money into member banks = $1000 deposit (they can loan $9 thousand)
The sham is when people can't repay the loan because of insufficient currency to facilitate interest payments, bankers reposses their property. This gives banks incredulous posture in economic livelyhood, they don't actually produce anything of worth (except for paper-chasing debt-slave whores) Bankers produce servants for the government and industrialists.
-------------
But, back to the point, the money system doesn't need to be understood to discover in what exact context FDR's quote was.
----------
If all men were created equal, why do some get showered with money created from nothing? If the monetary system is too complicated to understand, you read your links.
The links were mostly for my reference, and might be helpful to other, I was not making any point other than that it's a complex subject.
The thread is about the quote, and I say right in the start:
There may be very little to debunk here. But people who believe the Fed is part of some huge Elite conspiracy will point to this as evidence. So I think some context is important.
Ultimately, im a libertarian so I'd support competition in currency, repealing legal tender laws. But I'm smart enough to know that bankers are some crooked fucks and will scheme to install their monopoly schemes again... which is why humanity is always tasked to play "king of the hill" with these fucks. So, a popular movement needs to happen. Sovereign issuance of debt-free money is a civil right. It'll be a new civil rights movement. Queue Huey Long.
Don't know if any context exists there, but I like what Lincoln did with greenbacks. They fought British influenced sectarian violence, the south was wrong to institute slavery, it was against the bill of rights. It would have been better if Lincoln used his spending power to buy slaves instead, since the North benefited off of slave-goods as well.
When the FED issues money first to it's member banks it's called high powered money. Which can be multiplied several more times it's initial worth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_powered_money
10% Fractional reserve = $1000 deposit (they can loan $9 hundred)
High powered FED money into member banks = $1000 deposit (they can loan $9 thousand)
I'm a little confused by your example figures above. The "High powered" money (by your link) seems to be equivalent to paper money. Like if I have a $100 bill, it's still high powered money. You can base fractional reserve banking on a big pile of $100 bills the same as on central bank loans.
So I'm not following exactly how a member bank can lend $9000 from a $1000 fed loan, but only $900 from a deposit of 10 $100 bills?
I had read the quote often over the years and found it kinda depressing and inevitable. After reading this thread I am now more sure of the authenticity of its meaning and legitimacy.
I think the questions really are about how exactly this "owning" works. Who are the actual individuals, and how much power do they have? Who exactly decides US foreign policy? London Bankers? Chinese Bankers? Who decided to start a war with Iraq?
And how does it work on the world stage? Who owns South Korea? Who owns China?
Content from external source:
