Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

After 100 Years Of Failure, It's Time To End The Fed!
The Market Oracle, UK ^ | 12/15/2013 | Dr. Ron Paul

Posted on 12/15/2013 6:54:08 PM PST by Errant

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-143 next last
To: Toddsterpatriot

The prime window is .75%


101 posted on 12/16/2013 7:28:37 AM PST by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
Discount Window link
102 posted on 12/16/2013 7:33:41 AM PST by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: narses
Yawning is a sign of nervousness.

Does this make you nervous: The 16T the Fed secretly loaned to foreign banks and financial institutions, and that we only found out about after a lengthy court battle, would have amounted to a $53,333.33 loan to EVERY man, woman and child in the US! Do you think that would have stimulated the economy?

That's your "SO WHAT!"

103 posted on 12/16/2013 9:19:50 AM PST by Errant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
It's not privately owned. [i.e., The Fed]

Oh, you have access to who are the shareholders in the member banks? Since the bank's shares of the FED are determined by 6% of the private bank's assets, how about just the top 6 banks? That would be great if you would released that which even our Congress has been unable to obtain!

The Fed earned about $90 billion last year.

There again, it would be wonderful if you would share these figures whom the Congress of the United States have been seeking through an audit of the FED for years now. An audit that has never been performed since its inception over 100 years ago.

Why NOT, you have to ask?

What do they have to hide?

104 posted on 12/16/2013 9:29:06 AM PST by Errant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: plainshame
"LOL!Look at an inflation chart from 1791 to 1913 and then go to 1913 to 2012.The numbers tell the real story."

They tell a story that doesn't matter. Businesses don't care about the impact of small amounts of inflation over 100 years even if after all that time it adds up to a big number.

Businesses care about year to year swings in the value of the dollar. And when you look at that, the FED has had less than half the year to year variability than when we were on the gold standard.

Gold is in short supply. It's easily manipulated by traders like Soros. Plus China is the world's largest gold producer right now. And there is not enough gold to go around to all the people on the planet.

105 posted on 12/16/2013 9:38:09 AM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
The chart I posted the link to of the "alleged" banking cartel network connections, appears to be the granddaddy of all efforts to map out those connections.

Below is a link to another effort to tie it together but in better format.

Chart of who “owns” the Federal Reserve…once again… ;)

It brings up an interesting question after seeing the Lehman brothers up near the top. What happened to cause them to be bankrupt? Must have been some serious rift in the family to cause that split.

In any regard, until there is an actual audit, everything is just speculation (no matter how accurate) and the owners of the FED will continue to remain a mystery until then.

One thing for sure, when someone (i.e., Obama) or some group (i.e., the Fed) goes to an extreme extent to keep their records hidden, there is a reason behind it. We had a brief look behind the curtain when the secret 16T loan to foreign and financial institutions came out. No telling what remains hidden in the 100 years of its existence.

106 posted on 12/16/2013 9:44:35 AM PST by Errant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Errant

BTTT


107 posted on 12/16/2013 9:46:33 AM PST by dragnet2 (Diversion and evasion are tools of deceit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine

Thanks, great chart that proves what a disaster the creation of the FED has been for the country.


108 posted on 12/16/2013 9:46:39 AM PST by Errant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Errant
Watch the dollar index. When it drops below 80, the central banks become desperate to raise it back above that "magic number". One tool they employ is to sell gold futures. One day soon that tool will not going to work any longer, IMO.

I've been waiting to put my 401k completely into gold and oil. Think we're close?

109 posted on 12/16/2013 9:52:52 AM PST by Partisan Gunslinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Partisan Gunslinger
I'm no financial advisor. That said, what I've done is to spread my few assets across a wide spectrum of classes. IMO, oil is a little risky because it is a normal boom or bust kind of investment. In that regard, I have a little raw land with the possibility of mineral development. That leaves other uses as well.

The timing of any investment is one of the really hard things to pull off. What I'm looking for is a steady decline of the dollar after it stays below 80 vs. a steady increase in the price of PMs. With a 401K in stocks, you have the added complication of timing a coming market decline.

You have to stay on top of things and listen to your gut and calculate your risk. ;)

110 posted on 12/16/2013 10:08:10 AM PST by Errant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: All

111 posted on 12/16/2013 10:09:48 AM PST by Errant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Errant
I'm no financial advisor. That said, what I've done is to spread my few assets across a wide spectrum of classes. IMO, oil is a little risky because it is a normal boom or bust kind of investment. In that regard, I have a little raw land with the possibility of mineral development. That leaves other uses as well. The timing of any investment is one of the really hard things to pull off. What I'm looking for is a steady decline of the dollar after it stays below 80 vs. a steady increase in the price of PMs. With a 401K in stocks, you have the added complication of timing a coming market decline. You have to stay on top of things and listen to your gut and calculate your risk. ;)

Yeah, I've seen some dire predictions for 2014, was thinking about making the switch between Christmas and New Years, try to hit a home run. :^) You may be right about the .80 index, I'll do due diligence before I do it.

112 posted on 12/16/2013 10:14:25 AM PST by Partisan Gunslinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Partisan Gunslinger
Just to clarify what you probably already know, the index is the relation between the dollar and a group of foreign currencies, so troubles in their economies will cause the dollar index to rise.

What I think "may" be a sign of an imminent and major increase in PMs is a special telltale where the dollar is declining below an "apparent" line the central banks have drawn (i.e. 80), while the price of PMs are rising without sellers having much of an impact on price. One might construe that as sign manipulation was becoming ineffective, if prices are indeed being "managed".

Just my two cents worth... ;)

113 posted on 12/16/2013 10:31:16 AM PST by Errant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: All
Two excellent presentations by Edward Griffin on Youtube:

G. Edward Griffin - The Collectivist Conspiracy

Federal Reserve Banking Cartel - G. Edward Griffin - 2008 [Mr. Griffin speaks 13 mins. in]

114 posted on 12/16/2013 10:44:21 AM PST by Errant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

Edward Griffin about the FED at the Gold&Silver Meeting Madrid 2011
115 posted on 12/16/2013 10:54:32 AM PST by Errant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Errant

There was no $16 trillion loan. To come up with that number the Fed haters had to take 3 years of daily overnight loans and add them together. There was never $16 trillion outstanding at any given time. On average it was more like $14 billion. And all the loans to the banks were fully collateralized and repaid in full with interest.

There was no smoking gun there. There were no prosecutions. There wasn’t even a scandal.


116 posted on 12/16/2013 10:57:32 AM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: central_va

That’s the discount rate. How much are they borrowing?


117 posted on 12/16/2013 11:00:41 AM PST by Toddsterpatriot (Science is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
There was no smoking gun there. There were no prosecutions. There wasn’t even a scandal.

You sound just like the president. And are your really going to use "no prosecutions" as an excuse? They are never going to prosecute the directors of these big banks. They only fine the banks and route a part of the payments to their political machines.

118 posted on 12/16/2013 11:06:16 AM PST by Errant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

I want money at .75%. I don’t care who else gets it.


119 posted on 12/16/2013 11:07:44 AM PST by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/the-fed-audit

The first top-to-bottom audit of the Federal Reserve uncovered eye-popping new details about how the U.S. provided a whopping $16 trillion in secret loans to bail out American and foreign banks and businesses during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. An amendment by Sen. Bernie Sanders to the Wall Street reform law passed one year ago this week directed the Government Accountability Office to conduct the study. “As a result of this audit, we now know that the Federal Reserve provided more than $16 trillion in total financial assistance to some of the largest financial institutions and corporations in the United States and throughout the world,” said Sanders. “This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you’re-on-your-own individualism for everyone else.”

Among the investigation’s key findings is that the Fed unilaterally provided trillions of dollars in financial assistance to foreign banks and corporations from South Korea to Scotland, according to the GAO report. “No agency of the United States government should be allowed to bailout a foreign bank or corporation without the direct approval of Congress and the president,” Sanders said.

The non-partisan, investigative arm of Congress also determined that the Fed lacks a comprehensive system to deal with conflicts of interest, despite the serious potential for abuse. In fact, according to the report, the Fed provided conflict of interest waivers to employees and private contractors so they could keep investments in the same financial institutions and corporations that were given emergency loans.

For example, the CEO of JP Morgan Chase served on the New York Fed’s board of directors at the same time that his bank received more than $390 billion in financial assistance from the Fed. Moreover, JP Morgan Chase served as one of the clearing banks for the Fed’s emergency lending programs.

In another disturbing finding, the GAO said that on Sept. 19, 2008, William Dudley, who is now the New York Fed president, was granted a waiver to let him keep investments in AIG and General Electric at the same time AIG and GE were given bailout funds. One reason the Fed did not make Dudley sell his holdings, according to the audit, was that it might have created the appearance of a conflict of interest.

To Sanders, the conclusion is simple. “No one who works for a firm receiving direct financial assistance from the Fed should be allowed to sit on the Fed’s board of directors or be employed by the Fed,” he said.

The investigation also revealed that the Fed outsourced most of its emergency lending programs to private contractors, many of which also were recipients of extremely low-interest and then-secret loans.

The Fed outsourced virtually all of the operations of their emergency lending programs to private contractors like JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, and Wells Fargo. The same firms also received trillions of dollars in Fed loans at near-zero interest rates. Altogether some two-thirds of the contracts that the Fed awarded to manage its emergency lending programs were no-bid contracts. Morgan Stanley was given the largest no-bid contract worth $108.4 million to help manage the Fed bailout of AIG.

A more detailed GAO investigation into potential conflicts of interest at the Fed is due on Oct. 18, but Sanders said one thing already is abundantly clear. “The Federal Reserve must be reformed to serve the needs of working families, not just CEOs on Wall Street.”


120 posted on 12/16/2013 11:10:20 AM PST by Errant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-143 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson