The Mandrake Mechanism-(How the Fed Creates Money)

The Creature from Jekyll Island -Book Excerpt ^ | May 1998 | G. Edward Griffin

[jd777]

That's the last thing we need.

We found a federal reserve fan!

[Porterville]

Not a solid arguement, the boom bust cycle, growth and contraction, is on an ever increasing slope. If the cycle existed on a linear plane of existence, we'd still be livin' in 1930 era conditions....We learn, we push forward to new relms, we retract to reflect on what has been learned and to cut the waste, then we move on up the grade, pushing forward.

Even gold is only worth what people want it to be worth.

[billbears]

No a fan of neither. We don't need a federal reserve or a national bank

[zechariah]

Yes, but as I said, I haven't been *denied* any pharaceuticals, thus, I am free in that regard as well as in others.

From FDAReview.org:

Deaths owing to drug lag have been numbered in the hundreds of thousands. Wardell (1978a) estimated that practolol, a drug in the beta-blocking family, could save ten thousand lives a year if allowed in the United States. Although the FDA allowed a first beta-blocker, propranolol, in 1968, three years after that drug had been available in Europe, it waited until 1978 to allow the use of propranolol for the treatment of hypertension and angina pectoris, its most important indications. Despite clinical evidence as early as 1974, only in 1981 did the FDA allow a second beta-blocker, timolo, for prevention of a second heart attack. The agency's withholding of beta-blockers was alone responsible for probably tens of thousands of deaths (on this general issue see Gieringer 1985; Kazman 1990).

Oh, but since they've never personally denied you a drug there is no problem.

To wit: you can disingenuously say that you aren't free to drive anywhere that you want because legally, you are forbidden from driving down the wrong way on a 1 way street, but in reality, you can get where ever you want to go by simply following the rules.

I don't believe I've ever seen a more perfect definition of Socialism. You can do what ever you like, as long as you follow the government's rules.

[z]

[Southack]

Indeed, so long as you follow our society's rules, you are free to go anywhere and do anything.

What you want is a society that has NO RULES. That society is called Anarchy, and it binds everyone that it touches to the law of the jungle rather than to the polite rules of civilization.

My point to you was that you are free, or at least, that I am free to do what I want.

In contrast, you want to claim that you aren't free because you can't do those things in the *manner* that you want.

You want your drugs without prescriptions, for instance. You want your guns on planes that you don't even own, for another.

So to you, if you aren't free to drive the wrong way down a 1 way street, then you aren't "free", but to me, so long as I can get to everywhere that I want to drive by simply following rules, then I am free.

That's an enormous difference in perspective (and it is a difference that separates the 1% of society's radicals from the 99% mainstream).

[jd777]

Who will issue our currency? (not that any changes are ever going to be made)

[BureaucratusMaximus]

I screw the Fed...I'll be debt free (except for the mortgage on my house) before the end of the year.

[BureaucratusMaximus]

Oh jeez...this is a family show.

I=Ahh

[AdamSelene235]

Now, some Americans can be DENIED the right to a jury trial if they are caught fighting Americans on a battlefield,

Padillia was "caught" on American soil. I'm not aware of any evidence presented against him. He's guilty because they say he is.

[AdamSelene235]

Indeed, so long as you follow our society's rules, you are free to go anywhere and do anything.

Our own Congress does not follow its own rules. Like pre-Revolutionary France, the law has become labyrthine, and unknowable.

Consequently, rule of law is breaking down.

[AdamSelene235]

Grow up - quit being yet another libertarian parasite, sucking at the lifeblood of society like a swelled tick.

Man, RINO socialists have chutzpah. Not only do they demand tribute for every wealth transfer and entitlement program in the universe, but they demand we be happy about it.

Thank you sir, may I have another.

[AdamSelene235]

Hmmm... seems like the author is taking the evil fiat money in return for his book. What's up with that?

Its a crime to refuse fiat. That's what fiat means, get it?

[AdamSelene235]

Snore. So you want the benefit of a stable infrastructure without having to pay for it, together with anarchy. Grow up - quit being yet another libertarian parasite, sucking at the lifeblood of society like a swelled tick.

The Socialists Wish to Play God - Frédéric Bastiat

Socialists look upon people as raw material to be formed into social combinations. This is so true that, if by chance, the socialists have any doubts about the success of these combinations, they will demand that a small portion of mankind be set aside to experiment upon. The popular idea of trying all systems is well known. And one socialist leader has been known seriously to demand that the Constituent Assembly give him a small district with all its inhabitants, to try his experiments upon.

In the same manner, an inventor makes a model before he constructs the full-sized machine; the chemist wastes some chemicals—the farmer wastes some seeds and land—to try out an idea.

But what a difference there is between the gardener and his trees, between the inventor and his machine, between the chemist and his elements, between the farmer and his seeds! And in all sincerity, the socialist thinks that there is the same difference between him and mankind!

It is no wonder that the writers of the nineteenth century look upon society as an artificial creation of the legislator's genius. This idea—the fruit of classical education—has taken possession of all the intellectuals and famous writers of our country. To these intellectuals and writers, the relationship between persons and the legislator appears to be the same as the relationship between the clay and the potter.

Moreover, even where they have consented to recognize a principle of action in the heart of man—and a principle of discernment in man's intellect—they have considered these gifts from God to be fatal gifts. They have thought that persons, under the impulse of these two gifts, would fatally tend to ruin themselves. They assume that if the legislators left persons free to follow their own inclinations, they would arrive at atheism instead of religion, ignorance instead of knowledge, poverty instead of production and exchange.

[Southack]

Yes, Padilla was indeed caught on American soil, as were the 7 Hitler-leaning American citizens who were caught during World War Two after being sent back from Germany on U-Boats in order to conduct sabotage against us here.

Acts of sabotage reclassify civilians into enemy combatants, subject to the Geneva Convention, which means that we can execute instant battlefield judgement on them, up to and including summary execution on the spot, without any form of trial whatsoever.

Likewise, we can shoot *all* enemy combatants on sight without trial, even if some of them happen to be U.S. citizens (Taliban Johnny comes to mind from Afghanistan).

Once one decides to actively wage war against the U.S., one shouldn't be surprised to see our ordinary protections save the day for said deeds. We aren't going to stop a battle, even here in the U.S., in order to give somebody a trial by jury. In war, we shoot those who oppose us. War is a brutal thing, and certainly a last resort, but nonetheless, there are those who would choose to force their views onto us via a path of war and terrorism, leaving us little choice but to respond overwhelmingly.

[Southack]

I agree with you that it is problematic to have our laws become labrythine. A time limit should be affixed to all new laws, forcing their phaseout or at least for them to be re-visited over time.

[AdamSelene235]

We aren't going to stop a battle, even here in the U.S., in order to give somebody a trial by jury.

Padilla was captured in the middle of a raging battle on American soil?

War is a brutal thing, and certainly a last resort, but nonetheless, there are those who would choose to force their views onto us via a path of war and terrorism, leaving us little choice but to respond overwhelmingly.

In that case we should formally declare war. Such a formal declaration was actually submitted to Congress.

It was based on the declaration of War used for WWII.

The formal declaration recently submitted was derided as archaic, out of touch with modern times, etc. That is what lawmakers think of the Constitution and Rule of Law. The author was taken aside and asked if he understood the implications to insurance companies if war was formally declared.

Gulf War I was not authorized by Congress. Bush Senior claimed that he had the approval of the UN and the "international community" and did not need the consent of Congress to wage war. This, of course, led to the stationing of troops in Saudi Arabia and the murder of US citizens on 911.

Similarly, Gulf War II was not formally declared but rather Congress delegated their responsibility to the president.

[AdamSelene235]

I agree with you that it is problematic to have our laws become labrythine. A time limit should be affixed to all new laws, forcing their phaseout or at least for them to be re-visited over time.

Finally we agree on something.

The sunset clause in the Patriot Act is expected to be removed shortly.

All laws should have such clauses and we need hard limits on the volume of law. How about a 2 for 1 trade in. Each new law costs 2 old ones.

[4CJ]

Madison & Jefferson were correct - we don't need a FEDERAL bank - it's a tool for cronism and political favouritism. Zap the Fed as well.

[Pagey]

Read this Book Later Bump

[zechariah]

Indeed, so long as you follow our society's rules, you are free to go anywhere and do anything.

By that definition, the citizens of Nazi Germany were free.

What you want is a society that has NO RULES. That society is called Anarchy, and it binds everyone that it touches to the law of the jungle rather than to the polite rules of civilization.

No sir. You are very wrong.

From the Declaration of Independance
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

From the Bill of Rights
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The United States of America is a Constitutional Republic that was instituted to secure rights. As originally instituted, there were strict limits placed on the government's ability to intrude upon and interfere with the people's lives. Government was ther servant of the people. That is no longer the case. There are no actual limits on government's power and the people serve the government.

My point to you was that you are free, or at least, that I am free to do what I want.

Yes, just as Henry Ford's customers were free to choose any color they liked, as long as it was black. Just as the citizens of Stalinist Russia were free to travel wherever they liked, so long as they had the appropriate paperwork.

In contrast, you want to claim that you aren't free because you can't do those things in the *manner* that you want.

No, the points I have raised are all things that are completely prohibited are are not allowed in any manner. Further, there is no barrier against further loss of freedoms. (Here's a hint: That's why FreeRepublic exists--to try and combat the loss of liberty that previously was protected by the Constitution and the courts.

You want your drugs without prescriptions, for instance. You want your guns on planes that you don't even own, for another.

You apparently did not read what I posted: until a drug has been approved by the FDA it is not legal for a doctor to prescribe it or for a pharmacist to dispense it, even though the drug is being manufactured and for sale in other countries. And it is not the owners of the planes that have asked me not to carry a gun--if they chose to do so, that would be their right. But the government--which does not own the planes--has told the owners that they cannot allow passengers to carry weapons. There is a big difference.

So to you, if you aren't free to drive the wrong way down a 1 way street, then you aren't "free", but to me, so long as I can get to everywhere that I want to drive by simply following rules, then I am free.

False analogy. And despite what you've been taught by the Left, repeating it ad nausem does not make it true.

That's an enormous difference in perspective (and it is a difference that separates the 1% of society's radicals from the 99% mainstream).

As I said before, this is the Left's greatest triumph to date: they have successfully convinced Americans that we do not live in a socialist society, all evidence to the contrary.

You know, there is a reason why people like Nancy Pelosi, Noam Chompsky, and all the leftist, anti-war protesters are the first and loudest to scream the word "Democracy". They understand that an unconstrained democracy is free to make any law, pass any regulation and impose any burden on its people and still claim to be a free society. After all, you are still free to go where you want, do what you want and say what you want, as long as you follow society's rules.

[z]