• Pingback: Bank-Implode! » Blog Archive » Times of a Kind

  • Sean

    “Protectionists fault the free trade model as being reverse protectionism in disguise, that of using tax policy to protect foreign manufacturers from domestic competition. By ruling out revenue tariffs on foreign products, government must fully rely on domestic taxation to provide its revenue, which falls disproportionately on domestic manufacturing.” – wikipedia

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • Sean

      so you would rather our government command, control, and tax our own people instead of foreign manufacturers.. You are a GENIUS!!

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • onemore

        It’s a confusing blog when you talk to yourself.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Nate Y

    First of all, it is impossible to simply cut taxes in order to relieve the burden of tariffs. Pricing is a dynamic process and the clumsy hand (or iron fist) of the state is not well suited for such a mission. It’s impossible for the state to do what you claim it can do/what you want it to do.

    Also, the command/control/protectionist government you promote cannot be called a Republic in any meaningful sense of the word.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • Sean

      hahahaha what?! we were protectionist for the first two hundred years of our country. Were we not a republic? do you know what a republic means? hahaha!!!!!!! you are seriously trying to throw out a bone.

      What you said makes no sense. If goods cost more money we could pay for them with lower taxes. That is simple, you are just not smart enough to understand. There is no market adjustment that needs to be made. Good try.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Pingback: Ron Paul’s ‘Audit the Fed’ bill ‘gaining steam’ « Sic Semper Tyrannis

  • VR

    Take a music break.

    I Want My Bailout Money

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Sean

    Everyone on this page is off topic. I think ignorance drives this group of crowd and makes them even more incoherent to the real world and what’s really going on.. Why do you think the dollar would collapse if we changed policy? What makes anyone in their right mind think that sound money would have some adverse effect? Nobody here understands monetary policy because they haven’t learned it or been educated in anything related to the sort. This is just a kid’s playground, nothing of any importance.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • Christine

      Why…because none of your economic education has any relevance anymore since the dollar has been made worthless and everything and everyone finally has the opportunity to live a free, peaceful and happy life? Think of all the crimes against humanity and households that are rooted in this idea of money. I’d say the masses would welcome such a world. It’s only those who are clinging to the idea of money or gold, that it has the importance that we have mistakenly placed on it, that we have all stupidly agreed and believed that we need it for the world to work as we truly desire that will have a tough time adapting to the new way of living without it. Make the shift and imagine a world without it. Imagine the magnitude of freedom it will bring so we can live lives that contribute to and express our highest good.

      We use the excuse that we have money to lord it over others and make them deprived. We use the excuse that we don’t have money to inhibit the fulfillment of our needs and desires. It’s the love of money, the clinging to it that creates all the problems and perpetuates a world in constant turmoil.

      Think of all the things we do and are done for money, that are destructive instead of constructive. Replacing it with something else, just shifts the same results to something else. Give freely, receive freely…pretty simple and uncomplicated.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • Nate Y

        While a gift economy would be pretty sweet, I don’t think it’s possible outside a very small and isolated community.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • Christine

          Oh, your imagination (which is how we create in the first place) will grow over time. Beliefs will change from those that don’t serve us very well to the ones that actually work according to our true nature, not the ones that we have gradually adopted over time that has only hidden who we really are and what we are made of. Our true nature is still there. This is a far better use of our imagination than some of the things I have read that are scary, negative, doom and gloom and destructive. There is a famous quote, “Your imagination is a preview of coming events.” so we have to be careful about what we imagine. We need to get a grip on ourselves, our minds, our thoughts. The value of the human being will rise to an all time high. Everyone’s talents and gifts will be needed and honored because it takes the all of us to make up the world, even if we give them daily to contribute for free. I’m sure we will have a different sense about ourselves when we have evolved to this point. We were all born with special gifts. It’s up to discover what they are and put them to the best use for all to benefit from. And it happens automatically…when we give, we receive in the very instant. It makes us feel good, more positive about ourselves and the world. We have a place where we are made useful (not used), are valued (not replaced by the artificial belief and value of the amount of money we hold onto).

          Some of the things that have been put forth describe humanity as dire and desperate, worried and scared. When it happens that we can no longer buy or sell, that humans finally wake up and realize we have believed in someone else’s belief that a $5 is worth $5 rather than the fact that it is just a piece of paper, and that someone’s item we purchased is actually worth $5. The FED, the CFR, the trilateral commission, Bilderberg group, the new world order fascists would have us believe that we have no power over them. They can have their secret little meetings, but it would take us all to surrender to their way of thinking for them to have their way. Up until now, we have let them. It’s time to strengthen our own imagination and visual plans for how we want to live, really live.

          If you try to hold on tight to something that another is using to manipulate and control you, all you have to do is simply let go while they are tugging. Just like the old game of tug of war, the other side falls down, but you remain standing strong. Let them trip over themselves on the way down! …then merely walk away. Refuse to give your personal power over to them. Stay strong and create the life we really want. We collectively can.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • Nate Y

      More incoherent nonsense from you. You’re no fan of sound money. Rev up those printing presses Ben!!!!

      Of course, I do feel sorry for Bernanke. I wouldn’t be shocked if he doesn’t seek reappointment.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • Sean

        That is exactly the kind of thinking i was talking about.. rev up those engines and don’t think about where the oil comes from. Ignore the fact that we consume 20 million barrels a day. That has nothing to do with money and has no importance what so ever. Who needs gas anyways. We can pay for it with gold till we are broke but at least we can know what it feels like to have it my way.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • Nate Y

          I don’t know why you think oil/gas makes the world turn. Yes, it is an important commodity. Let’s go ahead and say it’s the world’s most important commodity at present. So what? It’s a boon for the countries that are lucky enough to be sitting on an ocean of it. But it doesn’t mean the US (or any country that needs to import the stuff) is helpless. All that needs to be done is to figure out what we can produce and exchange for it (a job for the free market). As you point out, the US consumes a whole mess of the stuff on a daily basis. We need it. Okay. No problem. It’s just another import. What can we trade for it? It can’t simply be dollars/bonds because, in the end, imports have to be paid for with exports. A country can’t just print it’s currency or issue bonds to pay for imports without serious consequences developing over time. Like the ones we’re reckoning with at present.

          You worry about high gas prices and want alternative energy sources? Well so do I. But our worries and wants would be better satisfied through the free market. Best to let it function.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Sean

            We can’t trade goods for oil because we don’t have anything they want. Saudi Arabia isn’t in the position to help their economy so they lend money all over the world to actual developing nations. That’s what they have been doing for the past 40 years. It’s called petrodollar recycling.

            Whatever system of money we have, whatever we do, we are not going to produce here as long as it is more expensive than elsewhere. That is why I have been for higher tarrifs and lower taxes.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • Christine

          And some day, hopefully sooner than later, we will have a totally free market…and not even have a financial exchange. We’ll work for free and have all of our needs met. We will actually enjoy living without worry and financial stress. We will contribute like at no other time in recent history. I know it’s difficult to believe, but there was a time when money did not exist. I’m not sure who even invented/imagined that the idea of money would work, but he was wrong. That idea has infiltrated our hearts and way of living to the point that it has made itself apparently destructive to all, even those who claim to have the power and control over it. No one is winning by maintaining this way of living. We need to free ourselves from the entrapment of a false belief in someone else’s belief in money and that we even need to have a monetary exchange of any kind.

          I would much rather live in a society and show up for work knowing that the janitor who has a family can meet his obligations to care for his family just as well as the Director or VP. We are each needed and we all have the same desires and needs. We love our families and children and want the best for them. I want that for everyone. It would be a nicer world to live in if everyone was doing great. No need for social services needed, no need for any of these bandaids to a system that simply does not work well for any of us.

          “Your imagination is a preview of your coming attractions.”
          ~Albert Einstein

          See that it is true, then be careful about what you imagine.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Sean

            I’m not going to work for free. Neither is anyone else.. Money has been around for thousands and thousands of years. It is what fuels capitalism.

            The money system is the best means for trade. The reason why I can buy food and other goods is because I provide services to other people. What if the people who sell the food don’t need any of my work? I’m going to have to give him something he wants. I could spend my waking hours trying to find someone to provide services to for exchange for something that the food man wants, but it’s easier to have a barter system of money which everyone can accept and use.

            “The best way to predict the future is to invent it.”

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Christine

            I agree with your quote. To invent is to create something that doesn’t already exist. That’s what I hope to see in my lifetime. It takes going beyond and challenging current beliefs.

            Going back to the gold standard is necessary and may be the first step in what I envision. A part of that step is the audit of the FED. At least then, the corruption would slow down. It’s rampantly spreading into other countries, global financial corruption. They are having a tough time with Russia adhering to the “tax system”, something about the “Rule of Law”. CSpan is covering a Russian Summit. No one likes the idea that we have been working for the FED/IRS to have that hard earned money we could have been using for our families, college, medical, whatever our needs be spent on who knows what. I’m not envisioning a barter system. To work for free sounds weird by itself, but in the context of what I see as possible it all works and is free. I’d like to see an advancement beyond this system. Unfair practices are being maintained and being passed from one generation to the next.

            i.e. Job are uneven in pay and yet everyone has the same basic needs. With this premise, we have created the haves and have nots. The have nots create the need for social systems and then we have more government, on and on. It would just be a superior system to honor and value everyone’s contribution in a system that allows them to provide for themselves rather than depend on the inept and inadequate government agency services and corruption. The system we have starts with the belief that one skill set is of less value than another…and that is not true. It’s an old worn our belief that has been passed down for generations and merely accepted as valid and true. It leads to bigger, expensive government the “haves” pay for.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Sean

            The union is what created the middle class. All countries with higher union percentages have lower income inequality. Ronald Reagan got rid of half of the union and since then the gap between wages has risen dramatically.

            We really can’t return to the gold standard because we import so much oil. The reason why we got off the gold standard is because OPEC countries owned more dollars than we had in gold. They could have taken ALL of our gold if we didn’t delink it from the dollar. Once you understand this, you can realize why we have to create money out of thin air..

            Taxes and income taxes should naturally become lower overtime as the population grows. Income taxes in the 60’s were 89.4% for the wealthy. Now they are 35%. I don’t believe in taxes but it comes with the system of money we have designed for purchasing oil. We have to pay money as a country to borrow money as a country to run our economy as a whole.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Christine

            Historically there have always been classes (even before unions). I would like to see the day when “class” disappears. It still exists because things became accepted as they are. There are those who have the need to feel superior so the income levels of every human varies, yet we all have the same basic needs. Therein lies the problem of our system, worldwide.

            I personally don’t like world beliefs where I know extreme poverty exists at the same time those that run the FED exist, and all those in between. Everyone should be empowered to take care of themselves and live a good life. Isn’t that what America as all about at the conception?

            The reason we went off the gold standard may have been as you say, but it is maintained because of Congress’ spending and the FED’s activities.

            Federal Income taxes that are collected go to pay off the national debt, and in this case, it’s increasing into numbers I cannot even fathom! When the FED is audited, we will know what our money has contributed to. It may be things we don’t even agree with.

            You know how Obama stressed how the middle and lower class would not see one thin dime of increase on their taxes…well, inflation is occurring and that is a “hidden” tax, homes were sent into foreclosure (all planned by the FED/Government I am sure), now the health care system that O. is proposing would put a cap on the amount people could itemize as deductions (stuck with paying the rest), on and on….

            This tax thing is really out of hand. It seems that were there is a definite demand/need, or avenue for people to get ahead, the FED just weaves it’s way into our lives to intercept the flow of money for themselves! Sick of it!

            We don’t create something new by going over what already exists with justifications. What is, is not working.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Sean

            You will not see inflation from all of this money because it is not in the system in any way.. The money supply does not determine inflation. The velocity of money determines inflation..

            That is the reason why we got off the gold standard and we import 10 times more oil now than then so it’s not going to change back. It’s worse now than then.

            There was never a “middle class” to speak of before the union. The union created the middle class in a matter of 8 years. Unions take money from the rich and provide benifits to their employees..

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • Nate Y

          Printing money to pay for oil simply makes things worse over time. Has your mind changed from “we need to print money in order to finance our oil consumption” to “we need higher tariffs and lower taxes”? Lower taxes would be great. Higher tariffs would be not-so-great. Yes, tariffs are nice for the protected industry. But their benefit comes at the expense of everyone else. Tariffs, on the whole, impede economic growth. One cannot grow wealthier through the restriction of trade. You really should head over to LaRouche’s site. You’ll find yourself among “American System” pro-tariff pro-government subsidized industry protectionists.

          On tariffs…

          http://economics.about.com/cs/taxpolicy/a/tariffs_2.htm

          http://mises.org/story/1429

          If we don’t produce anything to trade for oil, then we don’t get the oil. Simple as that. Basic economics. One must produce if one is to consume. And a smart person (or nation) refuses to go into debt in order to enjoy present consumption. Why? Becasue she recognizes the inevitable consequences and the prices to be paid.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Sean

            haha one cannot grow wealthier through the restriction of trade? did you forget what creates wealth? production. trade restrictions protect domestic production, so you are speaking nonsense and contradicting yourself.

            Our country had hundreds of years of protectionism and high tarrifs. It wasn’t until 1947 when we designed the GATT, and in 1994 the WTO.

            There is nothing we can produce to match the quantity as oil. there is nothing we can produce for 500 billion dollars.. There is no economy without oil, there is no food, there is no life to speak of..

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • Nate Y

          Again, yes, trade restrictions (like tariffs) protect domestic industries. But the benefits funneled to the protected industries come at the expense of all other domestic industries and result in a weaker economy. Also, you must realize that other countries retaliate. Because of the tariffs the US government imposes, other countries impose tariffs on US exports. Lots of negative consequences result. In the end, tariffs serve to enrich government and the favored industries and to impoverish the people and the unprotected industries. But since people (like you) tend to focus only on what is seen (the high profits and new jobs created) and neglect the unseen/more difficult to see (higher prices/shortages, previous jobs destroyed, etc.) they actually call for tariffs!

          You want to live in a country truly dedicated to the protection of domestic production? Head on over to North Korea.

          Best to let people trade freely.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Sean

            North Korea is a communist country. You can’t compare a North Korea to a self sufficient republic…

            The higher prices would not matter if you lower taxes. Goods would end up costing the same percentage compared to income.

            Higher tarrifs would create sooo many more jobs than it would destroy. If any jobs are destroyed, it would be shipping jobs which is minute compared to the production jobs that would be created.

            The concept of free trade says that a country will export as much as they import. Obviously this is not the case and to live within our means we have to tax imports. That is the only way to accomplish this.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Sean

            read this

            http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/briefingpapers_bp147/

            I guess your for globalization.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Gold is Freedom

            Could someone explain this ‘oil restricts the use of gold’ argument. Keep seeing it pop up here, but never with a full explanation of why.

            Unless the price of gold was fixed, and at too low a price, how could oil need restrict gold use?

            There is plenty of gold to the job, IMO.
            http://www.dailypaul.com/node/96496

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Sean

            You can’t balance a supply of money when we import a trillion dollars more than we export. We would end up giving away a trillion dollars worth of gold every year.

            “Hence the fixed exchange rates of currencies tied to gold were switched to a floating rate, also based on market price and exchange. This largely came about because Petrodollars outside the United States were more than could be backed by the gold at Fort Knox under the fixed exchange rate system.”

            “foreign countries acquired more dollar reserves, outnumbering the entire amount of gold the United States possessed. Nixon completely eradicated the gold standard, preventing other countries from being able to claim gold in exchange for their dollar reserves”

            “The United States of America has held a trade deficit starting late in the 1960s. It was this very deficit that forced the United States in 1971 off the gold standard). Its trade deficit has been increasing at an alarming rate since 1997 [32] (See chart) and increased by 49.8 billion dollars between 2005 and 2006, setting a record high of 817.3 billion dollars, up from 767.5 billion dollars the previous year.” -wiki

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Gold is Freedom

            Thanks, I get it now.
            Since we are not tied to gold we can live on unlimited credit.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Sean

            We have to unless we start living within our means. That is why I suggested taxing imports instead of our income but everyone is for free trade and doesn’t understand the consequences. We would rather tax ourselves than foreign manufactorers.. That shows how stupid EVERYONE is.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Gold is Freedom

            I love free trade.
            Just haven’t seen it in a long, long time.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Sean

            What do you think NAFTA is?

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Results

            managed (manipulated) trade

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Results

            True free trade and a true free market economy do not lead to disaster. Only manipulated (by government) trade and a manipulated (by government) market economy give us what we are now experiencing.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Sean

            If anything, we are subsidizing exports which would actually help our economy. You don’t know what you are talking about.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Gold is Freedom

            That is true, ‘Results’

            It is also true about the monetary system.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Sean

            How do you know a “true free market” doesn’t lead to disaster? During the free banking era half of the banks failed..

            Are you some economic expert because you don’t seem to know much?

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Gold is Freedom

            Along with economics and history, you have a problem with the social graces.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Sean

            haha, look it up for yourself. I’m not trying to make friends here.. You were the one who jumped in with a smart ass remark.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • longshotlouie

          Black Swan on the economy

          http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1170590726&play=1

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Sean

            hahahahaha! this guy’s idea is to print money to pay for debt. You have no clue! that is so funny, i’m crying.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Gold is Freedom

            At what point in the clip was ‘print money to pay debt’ mentioned?

            You should be crying, from embarassment.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Sean

            He said we should turn housing debt into equity just like we turned bank debt into equity. You are an embarassment.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Gold is Freedom

            I will try again.
            At what point in the clip was ‘print money to pay debt’ mentioned?

            Is it necessary to belittle and berate those with which you converse?

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Sean

            You obviously don’t know what we did for the banks..

            They didn’t say it in those exact words, but that is what they are talking about.. You are the one who butted in and made some smart ass remark. Just because you don’t understand what they are talking about doesn’t excuse yourself from making stupid remarks.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Results

            One thing to be said in Taleb’s favor is that he has never lost a spectacular amount of money at once. Three times now he has made money when few others did. The first was in the 1987 Black Monday stock market crash, when he made $35 million to $40 million as a trader. The second was the tech stock crash of 2000, when Taleb’s own fund, Empirica, gained 60 percent. And the third is Universa.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Results

            You cannot respond appropriately. I understand.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Sean

            so what. Warren buffet has made billions of dollars and is the most successful investor in the world. He is one of Obama’s economic advisors..

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Results

            More accurately, Buffet has lost billions over the last year.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Results
          • Sean

            so what, everybody lost money when the stock market crashed. He is the second richest man in the world from investing.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Results

            No sean, everyone did not lose money.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Sean

            You can’t judge Obama yet. I’m not saying I agree with everything that he is doing but his approval ratings will stay low until everything is fixed and then they will go back up.. Polls don’t mean a damn thing. George Bush has had the highest and lowest approval rating. What does that show…

            Everyone who has a 401k has lost money. I’m not talking about people like you without salary paying jobs.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Results

            Some followed the status-quo piper, some did not.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Sean

            72% of america has a 401k.. That means 72% of america lost money during the stock market crash..

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Gold is Freedom

            So 100% of 401K’s lost money?

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Sean

            Everyone I work with and have talked to has lost money from their 401k’s. I’m not a stock market expert so i’m not going to say either which way.. I don’t say and pull things out of my ass like you.. I don’t speak unless I know what i’m talking about.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Sean

            ya i guess all 401k, retirement, and mutual fund accounts are losing money.. stock markets go thru cycles, we are on the downside but it will bounce back. That is why they tell people not to take money out of their 401k.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Christine

    We really have the FED to thank for all their hard work to make our dollar worthless. It’s so worthless, that we no longer need it!

    After the dollar became worthless, I discovered there was a job I would rather spend my days doing versus the job I had been doing that simply paid the bills (barely). I go to work each day and I don’t receive a paycheck because I work for free now.

    After work I’ll swing by the grocery store to pick up a few things, you know, milk, eggs, bread and butter, all free of charge!

    I live in a home that was built for free (because it’s the job the carpenters just love to do). Because it was free, there is no mortgage, no interest payments, no bankers involved, no ARM and I can’t possibly be screwed out of my home!

    I drive a new car these days. It was created by those ingenious folks who invented a car that runs on batteries. There was no loan on the car…our dollars absolutely worthless…so I got it for FREE!

    The wars have stopped. Finally, peace at last. There was just “no money” in the sale of weapons and oil…everything is totally free. The financial elites have found something else to do with their time that is more productive and they too have real jobs…and they do them all for free! No paychecks.

    There was no need for the IRS any longer. It just was senseless to keep collecting dollars that were worthless anyway….and no one had any to give because we all work for free.

    The politicians find they are coming to work less and less. We found that we have enough laws on the books to cover everything we need. In fact, we got rid of quite a few that were rendered totally unnecessary due to our worthless dollars.

    Other countries around the world saw and heard how well we were doing without money, so they also go to work for free. We exchange our products and services freely to those who need and use them.

    I find that the only products and services that are available are top quality. With the ability to pick things up for free, we only use the highest quality of services only, the others are just discontinued and go out of business quickly so there is very little waste.

    I will make an appointment to see my doctor next week. It’s just my annual visit. He really has my best interest at heart and takes good care of me, all for free. I rarely need to go to the doctor anymore. All that financial stress I was carrying around with me had been ruining my health, but that’s all gone now! I’m just getting healthier and happier. Oh, and there was no need for insurance companies any longer because there was just no profit it in anymore! I will always get the care I need and nothing will be cost prohibitive…because it’s all free now!

    I’m taking a few college classes now and working on my MA. When the dollar became worthless, that opened up a lot more educational opportunities…college is free! The teachers teach because it is the job they love to do.

    It truly is an even playing field now. There are no longer the have and the have nots. We all get paid the same…nothing! And it’s all free. We all just choose to do the right thing and make our contributions every day.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • brad maynard

    after listening to bernanke say that there would be great economic turmoil if the gao was to look at the books, i wonder if he would be correct (DISCLAIMER: im all for auditing) my concern is that perhaps the fed is involved in far more nefarious programs than even speculation suggests or could dream of. perhaps he knows that should it be uncovered (whatever that may be) the US could be in BIG trouble. hope not but if you look at bernanke’s face during that statement it shows more worry than exasperation.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • Nate Y

      Who knows if there would be “great economic turmoil if the GAO was to look at the books”? But that would be a good thing in the long run. Best to get it out in the open and dealt with.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • brad maynard

        agreed. just makes you wonder what they really are hiding, is kinda scary that if this bill does pass unwatered, does gerald celente’s prediction of rioting in the streets come to fruition? wow interesting times indeed.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • Nate Y

          Who knows? I doubt it would come to riots in the streets though.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • http://www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve.htm TheFederalReservePonziScheme

      I think it might come to riots in the streets and war!!!!

      For a while, until the Fed is just abolished. Nothing too serious, but the exposure of the Federal Reserve’s operations will for the first time show people what really goes on there.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • VR

    There was the smell of blood,
    broken hearts and dying dreams
    in the air when Americans
    began to lose their jobs
    and were foreclosed on.

    The money, they said, had vanished
    into the maw of the financial “crisis”
    created so banks could suck up billions
    in 401Ks, mutual and pension funds

    in addition to the taxpayer bailout
    and regurgitate it into the mint julep glasses
    of CEOs and shareholders fanning themselves
    while sitting on the financial plantation’s veranda,
    living off the retirement
    of the Middle and Working Classes,

    and in the deep, dead of financial winter
    will drink hot toddies and imported brandy
    while wrapped in cashmere sweaters
    by the comforting fire
    of their remote and casual brutality.

    by Vi Ransel

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Larry L Bortles

    Thanks Lindsey, without any transparency requirement, it is indeed difficult to document any of the inner workings of the Fed. That opacity, however, given the Fed’s pinnacle position within our economic system, is a HUGE problem, hence my support for the audit.

    On ownership, I believe it will be a safe bet that this will have remained essentially the same from a control and benefits standpoint over the past 33 years.

    The real point? None of us should be left guessing about the ownership, control and agenda of the Fed! It controls our currency, and is, in fact, the world’s biggest counterfeiter. How else to explain our current dollar is worth no more than what 5¢ would have purchased in 1913, the year that the Federal Reserve Act was passed?

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Larry L Bortles

    Ron, I appreciate your initiative. It was long after I graduated from Cornell with an Economics degree and received a MBA from Harvard that I discovered that the Federal Reserve Bank is no more “Federal” than FedEx. This “soft fiction” of the Fed being part of the US governance system must have been advanced and supported by our educational system by design. George F. Baker, the founder of HBS was, after all, one of the original 1913 founders and owners of the Fed.

    I believe it very important that the original and current ownership of the Fed be broadcast as clearly as possible, for it makes an enormous difference in how one should perceive its role. Simply, it is a privately held company with its own agenda, separate and apart from our USA system of governance. As a licensee of the US, it certainly should be required to submit periodic professional audits.

    The following is what I recently wrote President Obama, which may be useful in your discussions and deliberations.

    Larry

    ******

    President Obama, I see that you have decided to give the Fed the formal responsibility for managing the US banking industry.

    This is at once puzzling and disturbing. Puzzling, because the Federal Reserve Bank is already privately owned by some of the largest banking institutions in the US; disturbing, because the Fed is not responsible to the electorate or any arm of the US government; and its ownership structure makes it primarily foreign controlled.

    The website http://land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/federal_reserve.shtml provides you with an overview of the Fed’s ownership, should you question my statement on this.

    Currently, my information is that the Fed is majority foreign owned. The most recent ownership compilation is contained with the following statement:

    Here are the top controllers of the Federal Reserve Bank
    1. Rothchild banks of London and Berlin.
    2. Lazard Brothers Banks of Paris.
    3. Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy.
    4. Warburg Bank of Hamburg and Amsterdam.
    5. Lehman Brothers Bank of New York.
    6. Kuhn, Loeb bank of New York.
    7. Chase Manhattan Bank of New York, which controls all of the other 11 Federal Reserve Banks.
    8. Goldman, Sachs Bank of New York.

    This ownership combination has been challenged by the Federal Reserve Bank, but my understanding is that a study of Standards and Poors will verify the ownerships. This means that the controlling interest of our national monetary system is foreign.

    Former Fed Chairman Greenspan, in http://tinyurl.com/m7e9u8 stated quite plainly that the Fed answers to no one, except on a purely voluntary basis.

    So, why would you choose pass to the Fed your administration’s responsibility for managing the speculatively indiscreet – some term parasitic, for which I have sympathy – major banks? Makes no sense to me, so long as you hold the public’s trust to be your uppermost responsibility.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • Lindsey Brutus

      Larry: While I agree with your post, the website’s document of Fed ownership is dated 1976. Maybe we can get a more recent document although I doubt it seeing as how the Fed answers to no one. Keep up the good work!

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • licker

        yeah, your move are so darn old. please have a recent document pls. what you gave may have been obsolete already.

        like you. ahhahaha

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Robert B. Winn

    In the late 1990’s Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve encouraged a device invented by J.P. Morgan-Chase bank executives called the credit default swap, by which a bank required by federal law to have funds on hand in case of loan defaults could pay another bank to have the funds. With the failure of Lehman Brothers in 2008,
    Ben Bernanke and Henry Paulson began throwing public revenues at large banks, telling the American public that these banks were too large to allow to fail. The real question in the minds of Bernanke and Paulson was, If Lehman Brothers was holding 18 billion dollars worth of credit default swaps when it failed, did that 18 billion dollars really exist?
    Well, really it did not. It was just a Ponzi scheme.
    Gee, I wonder if the American people would like to buy some shares in a Ponzi scheme. Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve can buy them a couple of trillion dollars worth of Ponzi scheme shares. Isn’t party politics fun?

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • Matt

      Umm before you start ranting, you may wish to learn what a credit default swap is before you just start assigning completely random terms like ‘ponzi scheme’ to it? Sounds like you are just taking random things you don’t think you like, but don’t really know about and just putting them together in an angry thought. The two are COMPLETELY different. Now I am not defending the extent to which credit default swaps were used, but hey that was the free markets at work and not a ponzi scheme!

      By the way, Greenspan was a fervent believer in the self-regulating manner of free markets and perceived these as another way to distribute risk and encourage capital allocation and price discovery, but underestimated the GLOBAL GREED (not just the United States) that occurred in economies of nearly all nations despite differences in financial system philosophy and interest rate levels (see: Germany and Japan for two dichotomous examples).

      A credit default swap is an agreement between two parties to hedge (and later to speculate – or allocate resources via the free market system) debt issued by a company. This contract included a principal payment and promised notional payments (sounds like a bond does it not?!?!?) that would then be paid should the underlying security default. That contract (CDS) could then later be sold.

      Sounds like a breakdown within a free market economy to me so please let me know how this is a Ponzi Scheme?!?!

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • Nate Y

        Yeah…I think greed entered the human psyche right around 1990. The fact is that the Fed/Gov’s policies of intervention protected and encouraged the greedy at the expense of the frugal. In a free market, greed is held in check by fear. People are greedy for gains and fearful of loss. All the Fed/gov policies, bailouts, artificially low interest rates, moral hazard, etc. encouraged reckless behavior. It wasn’t the free market that bailed out LTCM and others. The free market didn’t drive interest rates down to 1% after 9/11. The free market didn’t create Fannie/Freddie and provide them with an implicit government guarantee. Nope, we have the Fed/Gov to thank for that.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • longshotlouie

          Muy Bueno

          1% rates sowed the seeds of destruction.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Matt

            I understand, but how does ‘greed get kept in check by fear’ if my greed can make me a lifetimes worth of money legally in one year? What fear do I have after that? Fear of failure? Fear of failure is inherent within the US culture. If you have people within the free market system that have devised ways to legally exploit cracks within the system and profit tremendously, what does ‘bailing out of LTCM’ or rescuing Fannie/Freddie have to do with anything? This ‘fear of loss’ is already baked into our peripatetic labor force which causes free market laborers to try and make as much as possible as efficiently as possible and you get paid all the while until you succeed or fail.

            People don’t think ‘well hell ya know I would NEVER normally make a crapload of money on these risky credit default swaps, but hey the government will bail out my company if it all goes south so maybe i will take this risky bet!’ They were seeking to make as much as possible as quickly as possible, WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPANY FAILS OR IS RESCUED BY THE GOVT IS OF ZERO CONCERN – they saw the chance of a lifetime and took it and will look for another job after that.

            Free markets did create a compensation structure that allowed excessive risk-taking – and have done so across a swath of interest rate levels and government intervention. Free markets did create a shoddy ‘originate and distribute’ model that was not ‘self-regulated’ until after people made their cash legally and ran. Free markets then also created complex (but rational on paper) financial derivatives that allowed people to make their cash and run. What fear mitigates that in today’s world?

            The additional problem is, the bust didn’t just happen here in the home of 1% rates. Countless firms across the globe, in countries with far higher rates and with completely different economic philosophies participated.

            It was a breakdown in the global free-market atmosphere, not just as simple as ‘the United States government and the fed’ did it.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • Nate Y

        Rather than hop on another not-so-merry-go-round with you, I’ll just say that I’ve stated my piece and leave it at that. I have no interest and lack the skill to write my own economic treatise. Which is what would be required to properly address all your questions and confusions. You seem to have a sharp mind, I’m sure you can sort out all your questions for yourself (with the help of some books of course). I think Thomas Woods’ book “Meltdown” is a good start in understanding (Austrian) economics. He kinda comes off a bit prickish but whatever. Then go ahead and read some material by Hazlitt, Hayek, Rothbard, Schiff, Paul, Murphy, Hoppe, Bastiat, Mises (of course), and others. Much of their material is available for free at mises.org. I know their reasoning and prescience changed my mind from “the free market and greed messed everything up” to “we don’t have anything close to free markets…if we want to have economic stability we have to get back to sound money, economic liberty, limited government etc.” Perhaps it will have the same effect on yours.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • Short This

      A credit default swap allows someone to make a highly leveraged bet that a business will be forced into bankruptcy. “Credit default swaps” allow you to speculate on a company getting into financial trouble.

      Sometimes, you can enter a credit default swap trade even if you don’t own the underlying bonds. This can lead to dishonest behavior. For example, I can buy a credit default swap on XYZ corporation’s debt. Then, I can naked short sell XYZ corporation, creating the impression that XYZ is having financial trouble. In turn, this can cause customers to cease doing business with them, causing actual financial trouble.

      When the bust occurs, banks must pay extra capital to their customers, as they demand payment for the swap. The customer trades his XYZ bonds for the return promised in the credit default swap. Most credit default swap agreements assume that the issuing bank has an AAA credit rating. Otherwise, the possibility of the bank defaulting should be subtracted from the fee charged. Only a “too big to fail” bank with an AAA credit rating can profitably sell credit default swaps. The credit default swap agreement usually contains a clause that says “If the issuing bank has a credit rating downgrade, then the customer may demand immediate payment or posting of collateral.”

      That is what happened to AIG. They wrote a whole bunch of credit default swap contracts as part of their insurance business. Selling a credit default swap is almost the same as selling insurance. However, AIG did not expect most of their credit default swaps to be in-the-money at the exact same time. Their fancy Mathematical models assumed that was a statistical impossibility. Then, all of AIG’s customers demanded payment of their credit default swap agreements. This caused AIG to have a cashflow problem and led to a credit rating downgrade. After the downgrade, according to the terms of the credit default swap contracts, AIG had to post full collateral for the in-the-money credit default swaps AIG had sold. That’s the reason AIG needed to raise $85 billion in a hurry, so it could meet these “margin calls” on its credit default swap contracts.

      See You In Vegas

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • Matt

        Right, not a ‘Ponzi Scheme’, just a terribly run business.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • WK

    We have one simple choice to make. “MONOPOLY GAME” or “REALITY” ? The current system is a board game, and we are the game pieces. Do we want to continue being “played”, or do we want tp “play” ? If we want to “play”, we must “think”. Peasants don’t think, they react. CITIZENS think…. Let’s consider the MOST valuable commodity on the planet. It is US…without our energy, the game would be over. Maybe we should all rent “Ghandi” next weekend and watch it again. Let’s remind ourselves who truly owns the power, and commit to using it…peacefully, of course. End the FED? Absolutely.. and don’t stop there.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • longshotlouie

      awesome

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • WK

        Personally, I can only take on so much mental chaos before I shut down and become ineffectual. I am learning to boil things down, like maple syrup, to get to the “nectar” of what we must do. The very lowest common denominator we have to work with is our God-given ability to work and produce food for ourselves and our families. Around the world, ALL people suffer the whims of corrupt governments. No one is impervious to this, and we must do all we can to spread this one simple message.

        Without bloodshed, we must say “NO MORE”. We cannot give up our individuality, because this is were progress is born, through creativity from individuals. However, we MUST, MUST, MUST cooperate as an organism of human beings warding off parasites. Collective ignorance will destroy us.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • http://www.ronpaul.com John E. Rachal

    WTF Bernanke! Are you on drugs, or worse, delusional? The
    private Federal Reserve System has done nothing to stabilize
    the dollar (value of the dollar is down 96% since 1913)! Let
    us see; that is 1% a year for the last 96 years. Now that
    is what I call real stabilization! Oh! And the great depression;
    the “FED” really did a swell job there on stabilization! And
    inflation (our hidden tax) on top of ALL of our other taxes;
    brought to us by the “good and benevolent FED” has caused our
    economic demise! Then there is deflation and fiat money! Wow!
    The list goes on and on and on! We Americans are such an ingrate people! We should be ashamed of ourselves! That we should be; for letting their sorry asses in the door back in 1913 to bleed us all dry!
    For everyone out there reading this, ALL of our unconstitutional
    income taxes are sent directly to the “FED”! Look at the back of your checks when they clear your bank. It is always stamped a
    private Federal Reserve bank! This country better wake up FAST
    to what the “FED” is up to, and to what they are all about! I have only touched the tip of the iceberg on the private “FED”.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • john

    Penny, If you will look back a bit on the website, Ron Paul already tried to fight this but failed. He said that he will NOT sign any bill that will tax people due to global warming. He got a petition of 31,000 enviornmentalists and scientists with PHD’s all saying that global warming isnt effecting the enviornment. But Nancy Pelosi couldn’t get the votes needed so she came crying to Obama and he “Pulled a few strings” and barely got enough to pass this.

    I pray to god we impeach that piece of dogshit we call a president.

    Ron Paul 2012!

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • http://www.vimeo.com/groups/money/videos jonathan

    can someone tell me how many co sponsors this bill needs to be passed?

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • penny

    Anyone want to explain Ron Paul’s absence on the odious economy killer Energy Bill that passed?

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • Lindsey Brutus

      He voted against it! Whether it is an economy killer is debatable though. If the stimulus bill and the bailout bill hadn’t have been passed then maybe we would have some money left to fix our energy problems. Unfortunately, our practice of deficit spending is killing us!

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • BMSE

    How much longer will we enable their gambling habit?

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • http://www.facebook.com Kaiser

    sean, you’re an idiot again..all the comments u post…hahaha..remember me ; }? i’m the one who u used to pretend to be an “engineer”, later on an “economist”, and i think it was toilet cleaner at the end? How are u buddy? What’s ya job now ; } ? working for GM i suppose ; D?

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • Ross

      Kaiser,Sean is no ordinary idiot.He is the resident village idiot designed to distract people from the real issues.Just humour him,since unlike the Fed,we who aspire to liberal democratic ideals are open,non devisive and tolerant.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Eido Cohen

    Bernanke says “The Federal Reserve has made enormous strides in the last year under my chairmanship to expand the information that we release… We think we are quite transparent.”
    Really? Are you sure about that, Mr. Bernanke? You think doctored “monthly reports” and a “website” equals transparency? Then how come the Fed refuses to publish M3 since April of 2006? Because it “costs too much to publish”? M3 cost only $2 million annually out of the Fed’s more than $2 billion operational budget.
    How about the real reason that the inflation and CPI figures put out are a complete farce, and real inflation has increased by more than 10% per year for several years running?

    Also, the quote by Bernanke in the article above is not complete. The following is the entirety of his quote:

    “My concern about the legislation is that if the GAO is auditing not only the operational aspects of *our* programs and the details of the programs but *is* making judgments about our policy decisions, *that* would effectively be a takeover of *monetary* policy by the Congress and a repudiation of *the independence of* the Federal Reserve *which* would be highly destructive to the stability of the financial system, the dollar and our national economic situation.”

    Now, with that being said, Bernanke said something quite striking. He purports to say that the Federal Reserve requires “independence” (i.e. no oversight whatsoever) in order to function, yet – by the Constitution – all other areas of government are (supposed to be) subject to check and balances?
    Hmmmm… perhaps Bernanke likes spending trillions of dollars without anyone telling him what to do? Power corrupts… absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Robert B. Winn

    The partisan contentions that resulted in the Civil War were caused by the campaign undertaken by Andrew Jackson and Martin van Buren in the 1830’s to convince the American people that political parties were necessary in American government. As long as the majority of voters were not party members, political parties did not have the strength to require a war. The effort by Jackson and van Buren to legitimize party control of elections resulted in the present day Democratic Party, the party that started the Civil War, and a cycle of involvement in foreign wars that makes American foreign and financial policy the mirror of European political philosophy: The people exist to serve the state, or in other words, the people exist to serve the political parties that control the state.
    Americans are now doing what will overcome this form of political slavery. They are starting to register as independent voters, meaning that they can decide for themselves what direction the nation will take instead of having to follow political parties which do nothing except copy what is done by European political parties.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • http://www.ronpaul.com John E. Rachal

      Robert B. Winn,

      Excellent surmise of the current situation!!!!! When the
      American people start voting their conscience (independent
      parties), then our cause will leap as high as we want it to!
      The sky will be the limit!
      I was raised socialist, but now that it is knocking at my front door, I do not want any part of it! To be more precise, it
      is fascism that is currently knocking. I would like to see this
      country end up as an anarchy (a real republic). Before you
      say no to this; our country started out at first as NO
      GOVERNMENT, and then moved slightly toward limited government.
      Thomas Paine thought in these terms (which is why I like him
      so much). Too many people think of anachists as bug-eyed,
      bomb-toting fanatics, but that is not the case (with few
      exceptions). There are anarchists that fully support Ron Paul, even though they have no faith in government whatsoever. There
      was one interview on this website that confirms this. Take
      care and keep up the fight!

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • http://jadepaulo@gmail.com carver

    Thomas Jefferson views on the banking industry –
    “I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. “

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • Doug

      What’s sad is there are people living amongst us and running our government who believe our fore fathers and all they accomplished are no longer relevant. Jefferson’s foresight on goverment policy was impeccable. They gave us the blue print for crying out loud and now look at us.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • Matt

        Doug,

        When you say “Jefferson’s foresight on goverment policy was impeccable.” I wouldn’t romanticize so much, he was still human after all. There are many examples that would dispute the notion of ‘impeccable’, for example:

        “The appointment of a woman to office is an innovation for which the public is not prepared, nor I.”
        -Thomas Jefferson

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • Doug

          I don’t understand your point. That was the logic of the 16th century. I’m sure he’d be ok with women in office now. Are you confusing foresight with something else?
          We still have the best Constitutional frame work in history.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • BMSE

          I’m sure Doug meant the 18th century, and Jefferson was correct. Looks like it was many more decades before the public was ready.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Doug

            Yeah, I did. thanks…

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Matt

            “I’m sure Doug meant the 18th century, and Jefferson was correct. Looks like it was many more decades before the public was ready.”

            Wow, I didn’t know that was an excuse for not fighting for something? Why didn’t Jefferson fight for suffrage or slavery as much as he did against banks? Wait, probably because he wanted women in their place and he LIKED BEING RICH FROM THE SLAVES HE HAD. Any reason why he wouldn’t like a banking system standardize his little fiefdom? Sure!

            Well, by that train of thought, it looks like the public also might not have been ready at that time for central banks (which Jefferson obviously also opposed) or for giving up his slaves (which he sure as hell didn’t fight for).

            Looks like things do change… Or wait, maybe you should just go on continuing to pick and choose what you wish to ignore/espouse, good call.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • longshotlouie

            Maybe you should choose what we ignore or espouse?

            Wow, you really should take away the filter that you see the world through, and leave the emotion for the children.

            Here is the quote, again:
            “The appointment of a woman to office is an innovation for which the public is not prepared, nor I.”

            Leaving out personality and emotion, it appears that this opinion of Jefferson turned out to be factually correct.

            The women’s suffrage movement was led by, and achieved victory through, those that needed to do that work …. women.

            Deflection and strawwoman arguments cause you to appear weak. Um, let’s get back to the topic.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Matt

            Right, looks like Thomas Jefferson believes in truth and revolutions, but only speaks out in support of them when it suits him. Hence the venom towards Central Banks and the ‘ahhh, well, ya know not this year’ attitude towards suffrage and slavery. Nice.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • longshotlouie

            Same argument, less relevance.

            Are you dizzy yet?

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • http://michael@michaelpshipley.com Michael Shipley

      I’ve heard Jefferson didn’t actually say that, but I’m sure if he were alive today he would, exactly.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • Matt

        I’m sure if he were alive today and didn’t have a fat plantation with a ton of slaves and property on both sides of the ocean, a wife that actually wanted to work, and one currency instead of umpteen billion – sure I bet his viewpoints would be very different. Sure.

        Maybe his viewpoints would be very different on central banking too? Why not?

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • jonathan smith

    God Bless Ron Paul and my God bless our Country to greatness once again.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Mickey Kawick

    While you freely quote Jackson, and the financial situation of the 1820’s, the fact remains that this was a huge financial disaster. The South was mired in indebtedness or the inability to obtain new debt and many historians believe that this single decision by Jackson led to years of financial turmoil culminating in the Civil War. I can not put this succinctly and not miss important details (e.g. the South felt ostracized by the banking system controlled by the North) but still, it is widely accepted that Jackson started the ball rolling on the South’s declaration of separation from the North.

    Jackson had a belief that banks were inherently evil and wanted hard currency only (i.e. gold-backed currency) and believed that credit was far more evil than the banks themselves. He expressed his belief that banks should be eliminated in his letters and speeches. His anti-bank campaign resulted in the loss of many banks and one of the deepest depressions in US history.

    Before you get excited about Jackson and his legacy of eliminating banks, remember the results; the depression he created, or helped create, lasted almost 20 years.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • Doug

      The fed has been up to no good. And if that’s what it takes then so be it because it we don’t divert from this current path we’re on we’ll have a lot more than a stagnant economy to worry about. Remember the saying Power corrupts and Absolute power… well you know the rest. Lets just hope its not too late to save our democracy.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • Lindsey Brutus

      Mickey: The notion that the Civil War was created as a result of Andrew Jackson’s actions eliminating the 2nd National Bank is ludicrous! The Civil War was fought to rid this country of the greatest mistake of our founding fathers (allowing slavery to exist). Proper monetary policy requires a stable currency and the gold standard is a way to do that. If we could trust our government to keep a stable currency by not going haywire and increasing our money supply at obscene rates then that would be good. But I think that when the Fed is audited we will find out that we can’t trust them just like Jackson couldn’t trust Biddle. Now if we could make it to where we only print a certain amount of notes every year etc. then maybe we can do without the gold standard and retain the federal reserve for their other functions of reserve requirement regulation and discount lending to banks. However I believe you and the American public will soon see that the Open Market operations of the Fed have been so out of control that we as a country may have already been “sold down the river” and it may be that we will have to suffer a long recession just like you mentioned happened after Jackson’s administration to fix our economy!

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • Mickey Kawick

        I realize that this is the perfect forum for a flame war, so my apologies ahead.

        It has long been recognized that Jackson set a few different precedents and that some of these exacerbated the poor relations that the North and South had had up until the point when he was elected.

        Nothing, I repeat nothing, exists in a vacuum. There is no single thing that Jackson could have done to cause the Civil war. But he set in motion attitudes toward the South, banking based on hard currency that made life excruciating for Southerners for around 20 years including some major tarriff reform, and he crushed some banks that were tied to the South. Those formerly wealthy people were unrelenting and 30 years on became some of the biggest campaigners for the South separating from the North.

        Remember… the civil war was started for “states rights” and most in the South felt that they always had the short-end of the stick in all financial, legal, and slavery dealings.

        I could go on and on. There are whole books dedicated to the topic of the Civil War and many blame the financial debacle created by Andrew Jackson as the beginnings of the snowball that caused the Civil War.

        So again, I cannot provide sufficient detail here. There were many reasons he was to blame for the Civil War. Here are a few links:
        http://www.historycentral.com/Bio/presidents/jackson.html
        http://ngeorgia.com/history/why.html
        http://blueandgraytrail.com/features/southerncauses.html

        Go study it. It is really quite interesting. But it is anything but ludicrous.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • longshotlouie

          Wow Mickey, we must be on the same schedule.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • Lindsey Brutus

          Slavery was unfortunately a “state right” back then and we had to amend our constitution to finally outlaw it. Otherwise the 10th ammendment that leaves this power to the states would be in force today. So you can say we fought the Civil war over the states right to determine whether slavery was legal or not. Either way you say it, it’s the same moral issue! Using the 10th amendment to justify the immorality of slavery is ludicrous. Also, your articles bring up Jackson’s threat to South Carolina about it’s refusal to collect tariffs. The power to tarrif is in the constitution and South Carolina had no right to nullify anything! Look at Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution. Jackson was affirming Congress’ right to impose these tarrifs and enforcing those laws. It is a shame that this country has gotten away from duties and tariffs as a chief source of revenue and has gone to the income tax. Look at the result of this policy- the loss of national industries to foreign lands. What a shame!!!!!! Also, in your article from North Georgia it says that the southern states started to seceed because of the election of Lincoln and the fact that without slavery, they knew they would be financially ruined. In the articles that you wanted me to read the issue comes down to slavery as the cause of the Civil war.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Mickey Kawick

            The word ludicrous. I really don’t think it means what you think it means.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Freemenright!

            I think that perhaps given the gap which has engulfed between those that are super rich and everybody else – one could be forgiven for not thinking that the new form of slavery is the rest of us at the call of the super rich! The more the constitution is eroded the more power slips away from the people and is given by stealth to the super rich via the so called government! I will be shameful if the USA does not bring back its very carefully worded constitution for the people!! I also note that many Ron Paul videos are gone form You Tube… The timing of this coincides with the Federal reserve appointing a Public realations expert to unleash a SPIN campaign on how the Fed serves the best interest of the people??? This tactic is similar to rushing through the Fed Reserve act in 1913!!! IE. The timing is prdictable, neverthe lass removing such contant that has stimulated significant traffic to the web site will be damaging and it gives a business opportunity to a individual or group to pick where they have left off!! It will be a loss in a number of ways….

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • longshotlouie

        Lindsey, After your first two sentences, we are like this (showing fingers crossed), I mean blood cousins on the same mission.

        The fact that you outlined the problem of the FED in so few words says that you are analytical.

        Please, analyze this: http://www.amazon.com/Real-Lincoln-Abraham-Agenda-Unnecessary/dp/0761536418

        http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/w-williams1.html

        Though it was one of the few positives of the war, the slavery issue was not even on the table until well into the war. Don’t ask Wiki. Check the historical documents.
        ‘The Real Lincoln’ reveals the timeline with the documents of the time.

        I understand that your belief is the common knowledge on the subject, but it is already apparent that you can see through some of the ‘common knowledge’ that is out there with your summation of the FED.

        Just asking that you take a few hours to review some history.
        No Hurry

        Appreciate your posts

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • Lindsey Brutus

          Louie: I read your article. Wasn’t it Lincoln who stated that he did not believe that a union of states could not long endure half slave and half free? I believe God blessed this nation for coming to terms with this issue back then and not dividing based on the 10th amendment. Would we now be the last country in the world to have slave labor if we didn’t fight this war? Being born and raised in the south I am thankful that this country finally came to terms with the greatest mistake made by its founding fathers; not addressing the issue of slavery!!!!!!!! God bless the U.S.A.!!!!

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • longshotlouie

            Lincoln also said (during a debate with Douglas)

            “I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races…. I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.”

            Did we need to lose 600,000 Americans to end slavery?
            Did towns need to be burned and women and children left starving?

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • First Shot

            Lincoln’s real agenda was the old Hamilton/Clay mercantilist agenda of protectionist tariffs, corporate welfare, central banking, the creation of a giant political patronage machine, and the pursuit of an empire that would rival the British empire.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Lindsey Brutus

            Longshot: Unfortunately, we did have to have the war because many of us were too greedy to give up our slaves even though most slave owners admitted to the immorality of the practice. Also, you’re right in that Lincoln said these things about his race having a superior position. Aparthied was the solution of the day for many people back then and “seperate but equal” became the unwritten rule of our society up until the 1960’s. However, make no mistake about it; Lincoln was opposed to slavery on moral grounds.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • longshotlouie

            So you believe that the only possible course was a civil war?

            Did we need to lose 600,000 Americans to end slavery?
            Did towns need to be burned and women and children left starving?

            Every other developed nation in the world rid theirselves of institutional slavery without such a war.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Lindsey Brutus

            Longshot: It’s a shame isn’t it! Our hearts were very hard weren’t they. We debated the issue for some 70 years with no resolution so yes, I believe the war was necessary. Maybe it was God’s judgement on us. I’m glad that we are beyond it now and am heartened by the present day colorblindness of most of our population. What a change we have seen!!!!

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • longshotlouie

            Hmmm, none of the other industrialized nations of the world had to have a civil war to rid themselves slavery.

            According to Walter E. Williams, a syndicated columnist and professor of economics at George Mason University (and many other historians):

            “…… contrary to conventional wisdom, books about Lincoln, and the lessons taught in schools and colleges – the War between the States was not fought to end slavery; Even if it were, a natural question arises: Why was a costly war fought to end it? African slavery existed in many parts of the Western world, but it did not take warfare to end it. Dozens of countries, including the territorial possessions of the British, French, Portuguese, and Spanish, ended slavery peacefully during the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Countries such as Venezuela and Colombia experienced conflict because slave emancipation was simply a ruse for revolutionaries who were seeking state power and were not motivated by emancipation per se.

            Abraham Lincoln’s direct statements indicated his support for slavery; He defended slave owners’ right to own their property, saying that “when they remind us of their constitutional rights [to own slaves], I acknowledge them, not grudgingly but fully and fairly; and I would give them any legislation for the claiming of their fugitives” (in indicating support for the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850).

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Makesya Tink

            Civil War started January 1861.
            Emancipation Proclamation presented in January 1863.
            Please don’t blame God for the evils of men.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • First Shot

          “I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.”

          — U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864
          (letter to Col. William F. Elkins)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • perogi

    @arizona truth seeker

    Evidently, you cannot take the racist imbecile out of AZ either.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • http://www.yahudamoneygrubbin.com arizona truth seeker

    bernake is a jewish elite illuminati trying to hide there collective agenda of new world order and financial control…..barrack obama…an affirmative action assited black man able to raise a half a billion dollars with no credentials what so ever!! come on the man is a total puppet and in lock step with the power elite…obama will be reduced to a well spoken uncle tom and will go down in history as the worst president of all time…..you can take the boy out of the city but you can’t take city out of the boy!!

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • http://www.ronpaul.com Anarchist

      arizona truth seeker:

      I understand that there are many Jewish people involved in
      the central banks, but there are just as many (if not more)
      gentiles involved as well. Instead of playing the racist card,
      let’s line up who is the enemy for who they are and not by race.
      In fact, I do not see any blacks or hispanics high up in the
      central banks; I suppose this demonizes us whites as well
      as the Jews. What about all of the great Jewish people like
      Aaron Russo, Andrew Breitbart, Jonah Goldberg and of course,
      one of my favorites Ben Stein who are fighting for ALL of
      our rights? Do we simply discount them? When we go after different races, we in effect say that there is an ethical genetic flaw in them. Bottom line: a person is a person is a person. It is individuals who are corrupt, not races.

      And yes, Barack Obama is a hand-puppet of the Federal Reserve
      System. Would it not be neat though, if he as a black man, did a
      complete turn around, and started strictly going by our
      Constitution instead of selling us all out? He would then
      be an American hero! But of course I do not think this will
      happen; it is just wishful thinking.

      We need to keep the racism completely out of our camp!

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • Christine

        Judge by the content of their character.
        We are looking at some characters all right.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Jon Davis

    Wow, makes pretty good sense to me dude.

    RT
    http://www.anon-tools.tk

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Neil

    I think it’s weird that he leaps from doing an audit to making policy. The GAO is going to perform an audit and presumably release a report. What happens after that is entirely up to the Federal Reserve. if they have been good boys, they will get to keep doing what they are doing.

    Alternatively, if the Audit uncovers serious mismanagement or fraudulent activities, then the government (not the GAO) is obliged to take action. Again, this is not controlling policy, this is just doing their job.

    But Bernanke just thinks of an audit and automatically assumes the GAO wants to control it. It’s probably more of a reflection of his own behaviour than anything based on reality.

    Even more reason to line them all up in front of a firing squad.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Yea Right…

    The IRS can dominate, control, terrorize, and destroy Americans over their creativity and incomes to no end, but when the FED is about to be audited — YOU CAN’T HAVE THAT!

    Because, ‘…making judgments about THEIR policy decisions would effectively be a takeover of policy … a repudiation of the Federal Reserve would be highly destructive to the stability of the financial system, the dollar and our national economic situation.’

    They’re a bunch of criminals and hypocritical idiots.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Paul

    The federal reserve controls our entire economy. If some ultrawealthy person decides he needs a few billion dollars he has the Fed print it up for him and my kids will pay for it. Sounds just like the old aristocracy of jolly old England if you ask me. Looking back on history, did we really ever get freedom from the rule of the English lords? I dont think so. We all know the golden rule “He who controls the gold rules” The ultrawealthy never really gave us fredom. The term “MORTGAGE” Literally means “The Kings Land”

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Simus

    If the Fed will be indeed audited, shall we also learn how the masterpieces of modern art came to cost millions?

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • John Allen

    Sean obviously YOU need to read history. The panic of 1837 was a result of currency not being backed by gold or silver (just as it is not today under the Federal Reserve). Do some research before you post what you heard from the Professors at the barber shop, or the Wiki.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • VR

      In an actual free market economy where gold is money, the total stock of money is irrelevant as long as there is no government intervention in the market or government regimentation of the gold supply. The market will always, without exception, determine the proper supply of gold money to the demand of the market.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • longshotlouie

    “… the Federal Reserve would be highly destructive to the stability of the financial system, the dollar and our national economic situation.”

    He could have just left it right there.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • longshotlouie

    Threatening, as he sweats.

    LMAO

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • Sean

      It’s funny how the audit was only brought up once in 3 hours of testimony.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Sean

    ya and after 1836 half of the banks failed. The average lifespan for a bank was 5 years. During this time, 30,000 different types of notes were in circulation and businesses refused a lot of it. They didn’t know the value of it or if it was counterfeit.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • longshotlouie

      ya, and they should have failed.

      And this has what to do with auditing the FED?

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • Sean

        hahaha, you obviously havn’t read this post. I am 100% on topic. Do you even read anything these people write or do you just look at comments all day? I am the complete opposite of you. I read the articles and give my matter of opinion. You read opinions and make foolish remarks.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • longshotlouie

          sean, my reply was to your post. You really should learn to chill.

          Will you be imploding again today?

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • Kuan Ti

      Sean, you are absolutely correct AND gold as a currency standard is established by the market. You don’t need monetary policy to set the value of gold. But you do when you use fiat money, because its not real money, its credit. One is something you smelt, the other is not. Additional the argument in support of Fiat Money fails to mention the real cost of the fiat currency which includes interest and devaluation. The current economic crisis belongs to the FRB. M3 is an unknown, lets see if the idea of a global fiat currency is brought up as a solution.
      I think the argument that global fiat currency is stable is silly. You can trade an ounce of California gold, for Chinese gold. And american double eagle $20.00 gold coin is about .97 of an ounce of gold. you can use it in Russia, England, China, Iran, France, Holland, New Zealand, Italy, Lebanon, Syria, North Korea…get the picture. Thats a hell of alot more stable and global. Its simple and real. Fiat is a shell game thats built an idustry of econometric models arguing against gold. Central Banks (World Bank) has a lot of gold in thier vaults. Gold taken through the devaluation of currency. They have been able to take the world off the gold statndard. not because its worthless but because its worth more then worthless paper. Common sense is important when faced with a shell game. Gold is worth more than paper…ALWAYS, NEVER CHANGES. PAPER IS A PROMISE, GOLD YOU HOLD. The american economy is now crippled with the promise to pay trillions. The FRB will fail in its efforts to prop up Treasuries. What would you rather hold a $20 solid gold double eagle or $20 FRN?

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • longshotlouie

        A reminder to Sean:
        The central banks prefer to pay, and be paid, in GOLD.

        Why?

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • Christine

        I hope the elitists are/FED is saving their money to pay ALL of this debt THEY are creating for THEIR plan for the world, that will NOT work. All these folks can pay for their own financial mistakes and plans for ill upon the world. What goes out, comes back like a boomerang to them!

        I imagine a new just law coming into being some time down the road in the not to distant future that makes the members of all these secret, corrupt groups and the FED responsible for the repayment of this astronomical debt THEY are creating, and that’s after they have been audited and abolished of course, along with the IRS. No more willy nilly printing and massive unconstitutional collections to pay of THEIR DEBT to society at large, the world.

        They just might have to retrain to get new job skills.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0