I'd like everyone to reserve 30 minutes to watch this educational cartoon about the fed.

I don't think it's 100% accurate, yet closer to 95% accurate and good enough to get people on the same wavelength. It's missing some technical details but for the most part it lets people see the FED's playbook. It overviews our struggle against the bank over time.

It's called "The Fed Gets Absolutely Destroyed by Cartoon"

http://youtu.be/mII9NZ8MMVM


I hope you enjoy and can see the connections between the cartoon and real life.

3/17/2012 7:32:20 PM

Keep it in the Ron Paul thread.

3/18/2012 11:10:49 AM

This isn't about Ron Paul, Str8Foolish, this is about the Federal Reserve.
Keep the ignorance in chat chat.

3/18/2012 1:53:09 PM

If you don't believe that the Federal Reserve isn't doing what they're doing on purpose, then here is proof that they want the currency to be monopoly money. Once you see it, you'll shit bricks.

3/18/2012 1:56:50 PM

Quote :

"I'd like everyone to reserve 30 minutes to watch this educational cartoon about the fed."

Yeah, no.

Quote :

"then here is proof that they want the currency to be monopoly money."

Your "proof" is retarded. But you already knew that as you're obviously trying to troll.

Wait an hour and try again.

3/18/2012 2:06:45 PM

Tell me what proof is good enough for you, master brainiac.

3/18/2012 2:31:35 PM

Some statistical evidence and economic evidence would be great. Charts n' shit is always a good place to start.

Picture of Monopoly money on top of American money and then providing it as "proof" isn't evidence. It's retarded.

3/18/2012 2:59:24 PM

Bullshit. You'll just attack the source of those statistics. You're too predictable and you're only two layers deep in a 20 layer game.

[Edited on March 18, 2012 at 3:03 PM. Reason : .]

3/18/2012 3:02:07 PM

Well, so far you haven't provided proof.

3/18/2012 3:09:46 PM

Actually I have, you just don't know what proof is or what proof looks like.

3/18/2012 3:22:33 PM

Well, if they wanted our money to be monopoly money, they would use monopoly money and not print something completely different.

3/18/2012 3:24:32 PM

If I have to explain that to you, then this conversation is over.

3/18/2012 3:31:21 PM

I thoroughly enjoyed the animation. Some of the jokes were good too.

3/18/2012 3:39:50 PM

@Loneshark: Thank you. I'm glad you enjoyed it

3/18/2012 3:41:08 PM

I have proof the world is flat:



If the world was round, then why are all pictures of the horizon shows that it's flat? Have you ever seen the world being round? Ever viewed it with your own eyes?

And I have proof that we're going to bomb Canada with nuclear weapons. What's that proof you ask? We have nukes, they have oil. They're a lot stronger than Iraq, which we toppled for oil. Canada will be in for it.

And just you wait, soon Apple will own the US. In July of last year, they had more money than our government, and everyone knows the government is in debt, while Apple is not.

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-07-28/tech/30049957_1_cash-balance-apple-debt-ceiling

The next obvious acquisition for Apple is to buy the US government so they can control patent laws and grow their marketshare and put the competition out of business.

Oh, and the government can do what they want because the constitution is made out of paper. Do you know how easy it is to tear paper? How can something so easy to rip be physically binding? It's not like the paper is going to step in and be all like you can't do that. No. That's not how it works son.

But you're right. Pretty soon hasbro is going to be in charge of our federal reserve. We'll switch from the dollar to the monopoly dollar with a 1:1 exchange rate. We're on track to do this as we can just give them a US 20 and get a MD (monopoly dollar) back. It is the only way we can compete with the Euro, which is like a European monopoly dollar buck.

3/18/2012 3:44:23 PM

You wasted all that time proving nothing?

3/18/2012 3:51:27 PM

All of that is proof. You just can't handle it. If you want, I can come at ya as to why Ron Paul would be a bad president with proof. But I don't think you're ready.

3/18/2012 4:02:50 PM

I really don't think you have enough education for this conversation. I mean, you're getting "evidence" and "proof" wrong. Then you have to look at relativity and you just don't acknowledge these things in your writings.

3/18/2012 4:09:41 PM

I post a picture of a flat horizon. I proved the world is flat.

Canada has oil, we have nukes. We need lower gas prices. All of that adds up to prove that we're going to attack them.

Apples past actions and their financial situation and a logical deduction proves that they will buy the US government.

And are you seriously denying that the government can do whatever they want because the constitution is made out of paper? Look at the patriot act as further proof. The constitution should have been written on a nuke or something with a sequence written into it to detonate if it is violated. You know, it could be written in python or something.

And you're the one who is proving that the government wants our money to be monopoly money. God damn, I agree with you and go to the next logical conclusion that hasbro (the owners of monopoly) will be in charge of our federal reserve, because they already have the equipment and rights to make the money. Not to mention their money is more economical because it uses less resources. We're losing the game to the Euro man, why can't you see this? Hasbro is the key to the lock on our financial despair.

3/18/2012 4:16:53 PM

Quote :

"I post a picture of a flat horizon. I proved the world is flat."

Flat is a relative term.

3/18/2012 4:25:36 PM

No, it's not.

3/18/2012 4:27:39 PM

Of course it is. You just said you proved the world was flat, yet you know the earth is round.

It's flat as far as your eye can see, but in reality you posted an image with a microscopic arc too small for the eye to see.

3/18/2012 4:40:05 PM

^ I know the Earth is round? How do you know what I know? That's a big assumption.

3/18/2012 4:59:59 PM

please....you can call me kevin

3/18/2012 6:54:08 PM

trick question for geniusboy... romney or obama?


ibt.... ID WRITE PAUL IN AND INADVERTENTLY MAKE SURE MY VOTE DOESNT COUNT BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY 90% OF THE US IS FULL OF SHIT AND CANT VOTE WORTH SHIT


no but really.. what's your pick

[Edited on March 18, 2012 at 8:18 PM. Reason : 2]

3/18/2012 8:17:32 PM

who cares which one I'd pick? Our liberties and our money are going to disappear under both.

Whether obama or romney are in office, the exact same outcome will occur. Shit put all of them in there at one time, it doesn't matter. They're owned.



[Edited on March 18, 2012 at 8:27 PM. Reason : .]

3/18/2012 8:22:15 PM

Well that was a wasted thread.

Should I say it...
I watched the video

But really guize, wtf is this about? You want The Fed audited? Like Ron Paul actually got done? Look, we should all be for transparency (of our motherfucking central bank of all things), that's a goddam no brainier. The reason such absurd cartoons can be made is because the issue is sufficiently opaque to speculate into the issue at conspiracy-theory levels.

Mind you, no one ever mentions the reason for the separation of the main government and the federal reserve. It's so that the federal reserve can act independently. Like the CBO. Oh for all things holy, tell me you're not opposed to the CBO. Certainly, I agree that agency independence doesn't imply the other crap about the Fed mandate.

So what the fuck you going to do about it? You're not winning anyone over with the fucking cartoon.

3/18/2012 10:48:21 PM

Mrfrog, I beg of you. Follow the value of the currency from before the FED and after the FED.

Everything pre-fed was just fine. The dollar retained its value for a hundred years. Until..... the Fed was created. It's not a coincidence. It's mathematically proven.

[Edited on March 18, 2012 at 10:52 PM. Reason : .]

3/18/2012 10:52:08 PM

Oh for the love of God...

Every currency has followed the same general inflation trend. Let's separate criticisms of fiat currency generally from the Fed, ok? This particular argument:

Quote :

"The dollar retained its value for a hundred years. Until..... the Fed was created. It's not a coincidence"

Is an argument against fiat currencies. Which fucking currency do you want to compare to? Did the Fed create fiat currencies themselves? Is this a global agenda as opposed to a US issue? Fiat currencies are hard-wired to have inflation, because public policy favors this. Disagree with it if you fucking want to, and you can argue the inflation tax (or the inflation tax on the inflation tax, whatever you want to call it). But you're trying to sell me one issue as a different issue, and that's bullshit.

The issue of inflation you cite isn't an issue with the Fed in the slightest. It's an issue with public policy ubiquitous to all the developed nations in the world for the last fucking century at least. So let's get that straight.

3/18/2012 11:01:08 PM

Can't see the forest for the trees...

3/18/2012 11:29:01 PM

so in your mind the US de facto decides monetary policy for the entire world?

3/18/2012 11:40:45 PM

I thought you watched the cartoon?

3/19/2012 12:30:19 AM

according to the cartoon the Fed is a continuation of a conspiracy in the banking system that began not long after banking itself was invented.

So yes, it's global according to the cartoon I don't agree with.

3/19/2012 12:38:02 AM

Do banks exist all over the world? yes

Is the world in a financial crisis? The majority yes

Is the answer to fixing the crisis known? yes

Why aren't they fixing the crisis? Someone doesn't want them to.

Why? Power and greed

Are the politicians in on the scheme? the majority.

How did they get in office? The rich rigged the elections. They choose and told YOU the candidates you can choose from. While it looks like a competition under a false democracy, we are always the loser. The politicians we elect tell us what we want to hear when campaigning and do the old flip flop once in office and vote against us.

Where's the proof? Every election things in the country have gotten worse and worse, year after year. There hasn't been one year in our lives that we can admit that we were more free than the year before. There is no reason why the trend cant be where the people are HAPPIER and BETTER, year after year. We've been living in a decline our entire lives and we don't know any difference. What would it feel like if we got HAPPIER? Well imagine walking backwards in time. Less and less government and more and more money. People would work less, not more. People would have more fun, not less. The idea that inflation is natural is engrained into our heads from birth. It is not the case.

3/19/2012 1:09:15 AM

Quote :

"There is no reason why the trend cant be where the people are HAPPIER and BETTER, year after year. We've been living in a decline our entire lives and we don't know any difference. What would it feel like if we got HAPPIER? Well imagine walking backwards in time. Less and less government and more and more money. People would work less, not more. People would have more fun, not less."

Bwhahahahahahahahahahahaha you really think there's anything (aside from drugs) that can do this for people, dont you?

Can you tell me about the Rothschild's role in all this?

[Edited on March 19, 2012 at 1:44 PM. Reason : z]

3/19/2012 1:40:49 PM

Quote :

"Mind you, no one ever mentions the reason for the separation of the main government and the federal reserve. It's so that the federal reserve can act independently. Like the CBO. Oh for all things holy, tell me you're not opposed to the CBO. Certainly, I agree that agency independence doesn't imply the other crap about the Fed mandate."

The Fed does act independently, but they're clearly influenced by politics. They buy treasuries, and fact that they are buying treasuries gives Congress the option of not doing their job.

Them acting independently is not really a good thing for Americans or the world, though. The Fed has a monopoly on money creation, and they choose who to give the money to. Not anyone can go to the Fed and borrow at zero percent interest. Only a few banks can do that, and we don't know what they do with the money.

Quote :

"Everything pre-fed was just fine. The dollar retained its value for a hundred years. Until..... the Fed was created. It's not a coincidence. It's mathematically proven."

Not true. U.S. currency (whether it was the dollar or greenback) went all over the place during the early 1800s to early 1900s. Many, many banking policies were used during this time. Some were quite successful, others failed spectacularly. Inflationary monetary policy is not isolated to the Fed. 1913 changed things, because with the Federal Reserve Act, it became much harder to go back to sensible monetary policy. 1971 was the nail in the coffin.

I think the events of 1971 (breaking the Bretton Woods System) was a significant turning point, as it made the dollar the world reserve currency, which we're still running off of. This makes the actions and policies of the Fed very different than, for instance, the Australian central bank, which operates quite sensibly. Fed policy has far reaching ripple effects, comparatively.

So,

Quote :

"so in your mind the US de facto decides monetary policy for the entire world?"

It does, yes. The housing bubble started in the U.S. but spread globally. The Federal Reserve has flooded the world with cheap cash, and it does have a huge impact.

[Edited on March 19, 2012 at 3:19 PM. Reason : ]

3/19/2012 3:02:59 PM

I feel like all the Soap Box board is about is GeniuSxBoY arguing with everyone.

3/21/2012 12:12:46 AM

I don't argue with d357r0y3r because he makes sense.

3/21/2012 1:04:32 AM

Oh okay.

LOL I'M AN IDIOT.

3/21/2012 10:23:53 PM

Ben Bernanke Lecture Series at the University of Washington

Recorded live on March 20, 2012 12:35pm ET


http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/21242022

3/22/2012 1:56:06 AM

rofl

THE FED IS A HOAX JUST WATCH THIS CARTOON IT EXPLAINS IT ALL

3/22/2012 9:18:00 AM

WTF government?

http://www.newyorkfed.org/markets/pridealers_current.html

The idea that we have a list of 20-something banks that have privileged access to the Fed frankly scares me. I'm not a libertarian or a Ron Paul support. I just call them like I see them. They can't do this, it is patently undemocratic. I'm not using some philosophy here, it's just common sense.

3/23/2012 10:47:35 PM

^--starting to see the light. couldn't make me more happy.

3/24/2012 8:40:51 PM

Quote :

"Have you ever seen the world being round? Ever viewed it with your own eyes?"

I know you are trolling, but I'll bite.

Yes and yes.

3/24/2012 10:37:05 PM

Actually, our vision is spherical, so it's absurd to say that the horizon is flat.

Every line seen by your eye is curved.

Quote :

"starting to see the light. couldn't make me more happy."

So, Ron Paul, taken as a whole, hasn't won me over. I would still vote for him, but I'm just not won over. It's one statement I like, one incomplete, and one fail. Still better than 100% crap.

But, here's the but, some of the people who've gotten on board with him to potentially be his appointees in the event that he's elected actually have been winning me over.

3/25/2012 12:42:25 AM

What are your reservations about Ron Paul?

3/25/2012 1:01:22 AM

There are plenty.

The gold standard is a red herring. He should keep to the line of currency competition - allowing currency competition. That's the point, and he does say that. Going to "gold" is picking winners, and that's not what the position should be about.

He's wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Overturning the president would grant significant new power to the states, and this is what the Republicans wanted all along. Some Republicans might have wanted a national abortion ban, but that was never the political goal. The political goal all along was to allow individual states fully, 100%, outlaw abortions. Ron Paul would allow this. He's the most pro-life of all candidates.

Along with all libertarians, he doesn't have a coherent picture for how the legal system (or states) will pick up the slack of what much of the federal government does now. I won't lie awake at night if the FDA is banned. We'll figure out how to get safe food. But I don't believe that conflicts would be handled effectively when they come up. I'm not a fan of giving more power to the legal system.

Here's a good recent read I saw. I'm not expressing agreement with everything, but it has well reasoned points.

http://www.littleredumbrella.com/2012/01/lets-be-clear-ron-paul-fucking-sucks.html

Some of this all comes from a misunderstanding, like saying that he opposes the federal role in interstates, but the unsaid presumption is that another organization will take up that role. We won't just stop using them. But my problem is that:
a) there's too much unsaid about Ron Paul's vision
b) There's not the proper recognition that we're talking about something completely new

For instance, take these comparisons of the Fed to pre-Fed era. That's just too long ago. It's not relevant. The society he's advocating for is something completely novel to the Earth. Hey, I'm not saying that's all bad, but it the rhetoric doesn't live up to this.

There are plenty of things I could list I like about his positions and the movement. The war on drugs alone is worth probably 2 of my reservation points. The idea of cutting so much of the federal government is a brave, bold, move. You are talking about major risk, but "give me liberty or give me death", right? Unfortunately, the rhetoric has been too much flowers and happiness. One ad drives me nuts, it says in a 'cool' voice that Paul will cut $1 Trillion in the first year. I'm like WOAH! This is serious.

3/25/2012 1:43:01 AM

I'd like to explain to you what Ron Paul is running for.

Ron has his own opinions that you might disagree with. It's guaranteed that you won't agree with him on every issue because everyone is unique. What is special about Ron Paul is that he isn't going to run the government based on his own agenda, he is going to run the country according to the constitution.

Ron Paul as president, would only overturn Roe vs Wade NOT because he disagrees with it, but because it's not the Federal Government's job to tell people what they can and can't do. Which leaves the decision up to the states.

Now, the same arguments about abortion will continue to go on, but instead of fighting the federal government, you will be fighting your state government instead.

Ron Paul wants to run the country based on the literal word of the Constitution, which is, small government for the people by the people to protect their liberty! He puts his opinions to the side because you do not need opinions to do the job as president. In reality, being the president should be the easiest job in the world. There is no thinking required, everything you need to know and do is in the constitution! Everything that's not stated in the constitution is not the president's problem!

Quote :

"The gold standard is a red herring. He should keep to the line of currency competition - allowing currency competition. That's the point, and he does say that. Going to "gold" is picking winners, and that's not what the position should be about."

I've, too, have seen the movie "The Secret of Oz" by Bill Stills. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swkq2E8mswI , time 56:02.

and I know what your reservation is. He who possesses the majority of gold also controls the country. But Bill Stills says it's easily controlled by allowing silver as money, too.

Here's his quote:

Quote :

"The world economy is doomed to spiral downwards until we do 2 things: outlaw government borrowing; 2. outlaw fractional reserve lending. Banks should only be allowed to lend out money they actually have and nations do not have to run up a "National Debt". Remember: It's not what backs the money, it's who controls its quantity."

We have to ensure that we, the people, control the quantity of money. The information is out there.



[Edited on March 25, 2012 at 2:17 AM. Reason : .]

3/25/2012 2:15:01 AM

Quote :

"Ron has his own opinions that you might disagree with. It's guaranteed that you won't agree with him on every issue because everyone is unique."

When he disagrees with me, he's deferring a fight from one level to another - that is, issues that mattered on the federal level would then only matter on a more local level. I'm just not sure how I feel this will play in out in the place of education, for instance. It would nice to take it on faith, like "it's okay, we'll do it right". But this is nonsense in the context of politics as we know it. It's not that I don't trust Ron Paul... I don't trust everyone else who would be sucking up the extra power in this situation.

Isn't the the liberal hesitation with abortion? At best, the liberals were close to a national victory on the individual right to abortion. I agree with a higher power than the state forcing the state to do something when it is an individual rights issue. I don't think Obamacare fits this, but I see the argument that abortion fits it.

Quote :

"the literal word of the Constitution, which is, small government for the people by the people to protect their liberty!"

For me, Paul is nothing more than a protest against the government. Why? Because the Constitution was written by people bitterly, viscerally, distrustful of government. I agree, we've lost that message. The media is immune to a narrative of the people versus the government. They don't even see it.

That said, I find this to be only a temporary state-of-affairs that we have to occasionally enter into when people get so uniformly pissed off that a revolution happens. When the dust settles, our lives are still dictated by our pursuit of happiness. We want a strong economy, availability of work, and yes, health care as well. Most revolutions go overboard, no? Is such a thorough dissolution of the national government as Ron Paul advocates the right way to go?

There is a much much more difficult problem of contextualizing the social progress we've made since 1950, and we have made progress. We turned into a strong nation, although I agree that we've become imbalanced. The right narrative should be that the world has been and will continue to get better. Right now we've fighting for LGBT rights in a flashback to the civil rights movement.

I'm not going to take a knee-jerk response to the proposal to eliminate the civil rights act, I understand what the libertarian position is. However, civil rights itself is absolutely central to our heritage and America's contribution to the world and human history. How do we accomplish decentralization while not just preserving these accomplishments, but furthering social progress at the same time.

3/25/2012 2:55:32 PM

How do I into this argument? What is the basis?

3/25/2012 11:01:53 PM