-If I knew exactly when I wouldn't have to work, would I....such preternatural powers are not part of my skill set. But ballpark timetable I would say anywhere from 2-15 years. -Only to point out that it is necessary to read between the lines to figure out what is really going on. People rarely tell the truth directly on television....it's too explosive. -The US will pay back it's debt, sure. But in dollars that are worth a helluva lot less than they were supposed to be.....
You should look up the words reputable and relevant. They don't mean what you think they mean. I am very happy that your acceptance of lunacy is universal.
If you or I borrowed forty cents of every dollar we spent we would go bankrupt. How can the USA do this and not pay the piper. We owe more money than we could pay back in a generation and the debt grows. This is what scares me the most. The republicians seem to be the only ones that see this. The democrats do not seem see that the sky is falling as the republicans do. I am very worried about the debt. Both parties are playing politics and it makes it very hard to know WTF is really going on. The main goal of our goverment right now besides national defense should be paying off this forteen trillion dollar debt. What am I missing here. Not trying to be a troll. Trying to learn. I seam to learn more on this site than from the talking heads on the nightly news.
You should really try to stick to the topics discussed and the leave the personal attacks out. It does not help you make your point and the more you described such people as disreputable, irrelevant or lunatics when all the facts suggest otherwise it just makes you look childish. But, anyway a little history on these guys might help: Also this: Schiff main point is the application of the Austrian School of thought regarding economics results in a completely different analysis of where we are now and where we are headed. So, be sure and let me know which heading he falls under for Captain LSUSupafan. Is he not reputable, not relevant or a lunatic? You really are a dipchit, bud. Or how about Jim Rogers: He was the co-founder of the Quantum Fund with Sorors and then went out on his own. He called the bull market in commodities years ago.....and then went out and created his own Commodities Index because the current one at the time was so innaccurate. Here's more: In 2008 Rogers endorsed Ron Paul. Or one more, just for the record: Marc Faber: All lunatics, disreputable or irrelevant analysts according to that bastion of financial wisdom LSUSupaFan...... oh, yeah....in case I didn't spell it directly enough for you Faber also said this: Marc Faber – “Total Collapse Will Come” – Economic Armageddon – Dollar Crash of Make Money Dollar Finder If there are any other words you would like to educate me on....feel free.
This is an excellent site. You will never hear the truth directly on tv. You have to find it by actively looking at other sources. I don't have formal education on the subject so I'm sure to someone who is really sharp my description seems awkward but in a nutshell this is my take on the modern global situation: Problem #1) Money is debt. The money is created out of thin air and has nothing backing it up, but the public's belief that it will be in use in the future. Problem#2) This fiat money is created by a PRIVATE BANK. The government's unwillingness to create the money on it's own results in a massive burden of interest. Usury has banned by all the great religions as immoral but our entire system of finance is based on usury. Problem#3) The US dollar is the reserve currency. Basically, oil is priced in dollars. The system globally is controlled by various central banks. Any states not adhereing to the system will be declared terrorist nations and invaded or bullied into regime change. I once read an article that listed the only three countries without a central bank. North Korea, Iraq and Iran. Ironic that they are also the "axis of evil", isn't it.......I wonder if the two are connected? Problem#4) Using the dollar as the global reserve country is so advantageous for the US that Russia, China, the EU and others will have to come up with an alternative system or remain under the dominance of the US. The development of this alternative system (in my opinion) and the friction it will cause will probably result in conflict and the economic collapse of the US. But, regarding this site....it really is the best I've found. There are some very intelligent characters on here and I have really learned a lot about a couple of things. I think the moderators should do a better job of keeping threads on topic....but I'm sure that's tougher than I imagine.
You are soooo confused. First you cite Jackson denouncing national banks, then you cite Jefferson denouncing private banks. Neither addresses my point that these 200 year old ideas cannot address our situation. The financial collapse was caused by investment banks, which did not even exist in Jackson/Jeffersons time. Much modern finance is beyond the furthest concepts of those old gents. Hey, they could all have been MENSA geniuses and still totally ignorant of mater that exist 200 years in their future. By the way, the Continental Congress did not write the Constitution. It ain't that simple. The depression had five major causes that are recognized in the literature. 1. Stock Market Crash of 1929 took $40 billion off the market. 2. 9,000 Bank Failures lost life savings in uninsured accounts 3. Reduction in Purchasing Across the Board led to lost jobs 4. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act damaged foreign trade 5. Drought Conditions during the "dust bowl" era cost many family farms. Never heard of them. Do it right and cite their papers/articles in context.
Private central banks issuing money is the problem. Jefferson and Jackson were both against central banks because of their ability to manipulate the economy......they cause depressions by reducing credit available in the economy. That is what Jefferson was talking about.....it's a simple formula, really....flood the market with money....then withdraw the credit available at some point and crash the market. Then the "insiders" can buy everything for pennies on the dollar. I'm aware of the Continental Congress.....the point was the time period and individuals involved were essentially the same. Those individuals are almost universally recognized as being great, patriotic Americans and my further point was that to dismiss the writings of such people because they are "old" is unwise on so many levels I am suprised you would write such a thing. The FED played a major role in turning a normal recession into a full blown Depression. To dismiss that you have to dismiss almost all the "expert" opinions on the subject. If you've never heard of Peter Schiff or Jim Rogers or Marc Faber you should look into the world of bloomberg and cnbc on youtube.....they are all over the place, well known, respected and successful. Hell, Rogers has the commodities index named after him. To dismiss them as crackpots, etc. just reveals how little you know about them. Essentially they all agree that Bernanke is completely incompetent.
Now you are a economic conspiracy theorist, too? I don't think you can prove this one either. I didn't dismiss any writings. I don't dismiss the men or question their patriotism. I question the relevance of you quoting them on a matter they could not have imagined. I didn't dismiss any FED contribution. I pointed out the five acknowledged major contributors to the depression. Listen you, I didn't dismiss anybody as crackpots. Pay better attention and quit putting words into my mouth. What I asked was for you to cite your sources properly if you are using them as "evidence". Link to an article or something that we can evaluate for ourselves.
Red55: I don't understand you obsession with the label of conspiracy theorist....it seems like you throw that term around in an effort to discredit anyone that disagrees with you. Facts are facts and the facts regarding central banks and the issuance/control of credit are not strictly speaking "modern" or outside the scope of understanding of Jefferson or Jackson. From Wikipedia: Again, a private institution. Jefferson objected from the beginning for reasons I quoted above. The bank would benefit the elite at the expense of the common man by a engineered process of first, inflation than deflation. Note how Biddle caused a crisis by calling in loans as punishment for the bank's charter not being renewed. Also, note how Ron Paul's name is mentioned. link: [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_War]Bank War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] Money has been around for a long time and was not outside the Founders thinking. To suggest otherwise is obviously incorrect. If anything I would argue that the politicians at that time had a clearer and more "constitutional" view than those in Washington today. The politicians in Washington today have very little regard for the Constitution.
