Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Conspiracy Theories
 Federal Reserve Act in 1913
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 14

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 06/20/2007 :  19:02:59   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Hey guys, Continental(colonial) SCRIPT not continental currency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_Scrip

"The currency was born when a lack of gold and silver in the Colonies made trade hard to conduct, and a barter system prevailed. One by one, the Colonies began to issue their own paper money to serve as a medium of exchange to make trade vibrant. The Governments could then retire excess notes out of circulation by taxing the people, helping some Colonies generally avoid inflation. Each Colony had its own currency and some were better managed than others. It was banned by English Parliament in the Currency Act after Benjamin Franklin had explained the benefits of this currency to the British Board of Trade. Outlawing the circulating medium caused a depression in the Colonies."


What is the need for banks?


What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

furshur
SFN Regular

USA
1536 Posts

Posted - 06/20/2007 :  20:27:25   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send furshur a Private Message  Reply with Quote
So you like the idea of a Continental(colonial) type SCRIPT.

So that means instead of the Fed the production of money would be dictated by congress and congress would set the buying power of the paper money.
Irregardless of what congress says I would think that on an international level the value of the money would vary depending on several factors such as the value of commodities such as oil.

Anyway, you still would need banks, well you don't need banks now but they are very convinient. Even if you use the continental script policy it would still make sense to have banks. Where would you keep your money in your underwear drawer? How would you buy a house without lending institutions? I like paying bills over the net and having a bank card.



If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know.
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 06/20/2007 :  20:46:31   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Maybe banks as a storehouse. The price of homes has jumped based on the ability to pay; which has risen based on the ability to borrow. Homes could not cost as much as they do if the ability to borrow over 30 years did not exist. The amount of currency in distribution would fluctuate with the population and production. Think of money only as a tool of convenience and not as own current thinking; a goal.




What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 06/21/2007 :  00:13:12   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Keep in mind the entire house and one third of the senate can be voted out of office every two years. This is a strong break on government manipulating a fiat currency for political purpose.



What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

furshur
SFN Regular

USA
1536 Posts

Posted - 06/21/2007 :  07:25:06   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send furshur a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Keep in mind the entire house and one third of the senate can be voted out of office every two years. This is a strong break on government manipulating a fiat currency for political purpose.

I still don't see any conspiracy, but this is an interesting idea that I never bothered to consider. I would like to look into this a little deeper, but I probably won't because I don't have the time.


If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know.
Go to Top of Page

sickmint79
New Member

24 Posts

Posted - 06/21/2007 :  13:01:33   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit sickmint79's Homepage Send sickmint79 a Private Message  Reply with Quote
jerome makes sense with banks just being a spot to store money. did banks and savings and loan places exist separately in the past? the bank you would actually pay to keep your money at and keep it safe, and for those services (online checking) etc. you would earn no money. a savings and loan you could deposit your money at and say you were going to leave it alone (ie. 5 year cd) and it could then be loaned out to people/businesses. i think the only real problem would be when that place does not have enough to loan out.
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 06/21/2007 :  19:52:49   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by furshur

Keep in mind the entire house and one third of the senate can be voted out of office every two years. This is a strong break on government manipulating a fiat currency for political purpose.

I still don't see any conspiracy, but this is an interesting idea that I never bothered to consider. I would like to look into this a little deeper, but I probably won't because I don't have the time.





Benjamin Franklin

"The Colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been the poverty caused by the bad influence of the English bankers on the Parliament, which has caused in the Colonies hatred of England and the Revolutionary War."

http://reactor-core.org/america-created-money.html

Here is the conspiracy, the war was fought about central banking. 1907 panic was caused to create the central bank. The central bank caused the depression to consolidate its power.

The 1907 data I presented was not disputed. The depression data was only disputed with a high school text in contradiction to a Nobel prize winner.

The inflation data can not be disputed. It is inflation and debt that are the conspiracy to enslave the average worker.





What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4955 Posts

Posted - 06/22/2007 :  05:04:45   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Here is the conspiracy, the war was fought about central banking. 1907 panic was caused to create the central bank. The central bank caused the depression to consolidate its power.

The 1907 data I presented was not disputed. The depression data was only disputed with a high school text in contradiction to a Nobel prize winner.

The inflation data can not be disputed. It is inflation and debt that are the conspiracy to enslave the average worker.
I'd love to address more of this when I have time, but let me first correct (I hope for the last time) this lie you keep repeating. The website I linked did not say that the Fed played no role the the depression. It said the opposite. Re-read the posts in question, and then post your retraction below. Thanks!
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 06/22/2007 :  09:13:45   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote

This clearly notes that the Fed had a role in not mitigating the Great Depression. To be sure, it does not go into detail, but since this is written for a high school social studies class, we shouldn't expect that.



These are your words Cune. Its role was not doing anything.



What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4955 Posts

Posted - 06/22/2007 :  09:26:07   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME


This clearly notes that the Fed had a role in not mitigating the Great Depression. To be sure, it does not go into detail, but since this is written for a high school social studies class, we shouldn't expect that.



These are your words Cune. Its role was not doing anything.
Oops! I keep forgetting that you have sub-high school reading comprehension skills. The article I cited said re the Great Depression
This was due to several reasons. One, federal law allowed banks to invest in real estate financial services. Banks were not just savings institutions, they were investment oriented. Two, only a small number of banks were members of the Fed and were not subject to the Fed's reserve requirements. Three, Federal Reserve policy was typically laissez faire in this period and did not take the policy steps needed to intervene in a potential collapse. Fourth, and last, deposits were not insured.
Any normal person would take this to mean that the Fed's bad policies were a contributing factor to the event.

ETA: Even your man Friedman has a more nuanced view of things:
What happened was that from 1929 to 1933 you had a major contraction which, in my opinion, was caused primarily by the failure of the Federal Reserve System, to follow the course of action for which it was set up. It was set up to prevent exactly what happened from 1929 to 1933. But instead of preventing it, they facilitated it...

The Great Depression in the United States was caused - I won't say caused, was enormously intensified and made far worse than it would have been by bad monetary policy. Now, the bad monetary policy was not the result of one decision. It was the result of a whole series of decisions. But the fact that that bad monetary policy was carried out was, in part, the result of a real accident, which was that the dominant figure in the Federal Reserve System, Benjamin Strong, who was Governor of the Federal Reserve Bank in New York, had died in 1928. It is my considered opinion that if he had lived two or three more years, you might very well not have had a Great Depression.
Again, it's poor Fed policy that had a role in the Depression. That's what Friedman said, and that's what the site I linked said.

I'll expect your retraction in short order.

(Or more goalpost moving)
Edited by - Cuneiformist on 06/22/2007 09:50:40
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 06/22/2007 :  10:07:57   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Cune, said " Any normal person would take this to mean that the Fed's bad policies were a contributing factor to the event."

So, you are saying you are not normal as you interpreted the text as saying that the "Fed had a role in not mitigating the Great Depression."



What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4955 Posts

Posted - 06/22/2007 :  10:21:48   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME

Cune, said " Any normal person would take this to mean that the Fed's bad policies were a contributing factor to the event."

So, you are saying you are not normal as you interpreted the text as saying that the "Fed had a role in not mitigating the Great Depression."


I know it's hard for you, Jermoe. Particularly when your own sources actually agree with me. The Fed, with better policies, could have mitigated the event. Indeed, your man Friedman suggests that it could have been averted to a large part. But they didn't mitigate the event because they had poor policies (and, it appears, poor leadership). So the other factors that were behind the event continued unchecked. That's what the site I referenced said, and that's what Friedman said.

Try to pay attention and understand what you're reading before you post.
Go to Top of Page

BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard

3192 Posts

Posted - 06/22/2007 :  10:52:40   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send BigPapaSmurf a Private Message  Reply with Quote
No, I think you are both near the same page only J is insisting that it was an intentional conspiracy with no evidence and you are saying it was stupidity compounded with inaction, both of which are unprovable so perhaps we can move onto the topic of what the hell Jerome thinks will fix the problem.

and no, pre-civil war economics will not work Jerome.

"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History

"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini
Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4955 Posts

Posted - 06/22/2007 :  11:43:52   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf

No, I think you are both near the same page only J is insisting that it was an intentional conspiracy with no evidence and you are saying it was stupidity compounded with inaction, both of which are unprovable so perhaps we can move onto the topic of what the hell Jerome thinks will fix the problem.

and no, pre-civil war economics will not work Jerome.
You're right, BPS, this current squabble is only a minor point. Earlier, I linked to a site which gave a short history of banking and the development to the current system. Jerome criticized the site for various reasons, though, as I demonstrated, none of his critiques were particularly valid.

One of his complains was that the site in question ignored the role of the Fed in the Great Depression. I corrected him on this and provided the appropriate citation. Since then, however, Jeromep has continued to inflate the role of the Fed in the Depression and to present as a strawman that I (and others) see no role of the Fed in the Depression. More recently, he put forward another strawman (and childish jab) in the context of finally (after only 13 pages!) presenting some semblance of a conspiracy theory. I wanted to correct that before addressing the larger points. As yet, Jerome has used his nefarious poor reading comprehension skills to deflect from the matter. Let's see if he'll continue.
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 06/22/2007 :  20:20:41   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf

No, I think you are both near the same page only J is insisting that it was an intentional conspiracy with no evidence and you are saying it was stupidity compounded with inaction, both of which are unprovable so perhaps we can move onto the topic of what the hell Jerome thinks will fix the problem.

and no, pre-civil war economics will not work Jerome.



Money should only be used as a tool. Money should not be an goal. Money should have no value outside of a tool of exchange. The supply of money should equate to the need to exchange.


What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 14 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.22 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000