How you get money...

Discussion in 'Planning' started by sdrowkcab, Jun 18, 2013.

  1. sdrowkcab Member

    Ever wonder how you get money? the answer the banks. how do they get money? the IRS. How do they get money? The Federal Reserve. By the way is NOT owned by the government but by private investors. And they are the ones who own the Mint that prints money. This video is to educate you and to show that we, Anonymous, must organize against this fiend and fight to preserve our country! I urge other countrys such as England, France, even Spain to look into how your nation gets money. Join our fight if you will in the largest ever gathering to stop the beast of slavery that we in the United States call... the "Federal" Reserve

    #Op SafeDeposit
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  2. Anonymous Member

    Sauce? More dox?
  3. The Internet Member

    So we get the Navy Seals to take out the monsters with the red faces. Then we take over their operations and use the profits to build useful stuff, like shelters for homeless people.
  4. sdrowkcab Member

    anything but keep these greedy buisness men and women from running our government. Its all corruption
  5. Anonymous Member

    You're being optimistic....
  6. Anonymous Member

  7. The Internet Member


    I notice that you can buy gold with US dollars. Alternately, you can sell gold for US dollars. When people want to transfer their wealth from dollars into gold, the value of the dollar drops and the value of gold increases, have I got that right?

    Is there some way to tell if the people behind this video happen to live in the countries with the yellow dots or the green dots? Because that would make sense.
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Anonymous Member

  9. Anonymous Member

    Banks, just like most profit driven enterprises, will try to make people buy more of its product, to the enterprise's benefit and potentially the customer's detriment. But, I don't think JFK was trying to do what the vid alleges.
  10. The Internet Member

    Holy Mother of God, 80%! That seems like a lot.

    Gold could do the same thing. Let's say we backed our dollars with gold and then gold doubled in value. People all over the world would trade in their dollars for gold. Then our gold reserves would go way down. I think this would make us sad because we love having huge piles of gold, just like Smaug the dragon.
    • Like Like x 2
  11. VindicoX Member

    I saw this a while back.. makes sense of how things run.
  12. Anonymous Member

    Ever wonder why gold stayed pretty steady at $20 per ounce for the first 130 years of the dollar, from about 1800 until 1933?
    Ever wonder what changed to devalue to dollar since then?
  13. The Internet Member

    Honestly? No.
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Anonymous Member

    Honestly, you should. It's highly instructive of how money functions in society, and how having hard money has salutary effects, such as limiting wars.
  15. The Internet Member

    Thanks but I'll leave the heavy lifting to you smart guys with degrees in economics. I just don't have that kind of time. But I will stop by and troll you occasionally.
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Anonymous Member

    No matter. It should be pretty obvious that something changed, if the dollar stayed constant for so long then fell off a cliff.

    And since the OP talks about the Fed...hmmm, shouldn't be too hard to figure out.

    Tell me, do you like having a government that steals your money as it sits in your wallet? If you understood my point, if you really understood what they were doing, you wouldn't be so smarmy about what is going on.

    But what the hey. Troll all you want. Just remember you reap what you sow.
  17. Anonymous Member

    So edgy.
    • Like Like x 1
  18. The Internet Member

    It is superficially convincing yet it fails to explain one thing: Why is it that smart people all around the world --people with advanced degrees in economics-- why do the vast majority of them say that going back to the gold standard is more trouble than it's worth? They aren't all in a cult. Many of them strongly disagree with each other about a lot of things. And yet they go, "Gold standard, no."

    This video has good production values. It's aimed at the Jugendliche, the youth. Replace "Red Shields" with "Jewish Bankers" and you may recognize the plan likely to follow a period of armed civil conflict.

    Anyone who grabs power to calm domestic unrest will feel relieved to have the efficiency of the NSA so close at hand.

    tl;dr: No.
    • Like Like x 2
  19. Anonymous Member

    No, not at all because the answer isn’t too difficult to understand.

    1) If your currency is based on gold, even if indirectly, then it should not be surprising that the value of your currency somewhat tracks the value of gold.

    2) If your currency is not based on gold, not even indirectly, then it should not be surprising that the value of your currency does not track the value of gold.

    Until 1933 the dollar was tied to gold. After 1933 it was not tied to gold. That’s pretty much it.

    You are right when you later state that “It should be pretty obvious that something changed”. But, to be completely honest with you, if you cannot find out the reason in this age of the internet (and learn about things like the ‘Gold Clause Cases’) then you should probably fuck off and spare the rest of us your ignorance-backed conspiracy nonsense.
    • Like Like x 2
  20. PresidentShaw Member

    Godammit moonbats. I won't even bother
    • Like Like x 3
  21. Anonymous Member

    You should. It can be fun and you (and others) might learn new things (not from the moonbats though).
  22. Anonymous Member

    In case you missed it, Red Shields is English translation of German Rothschilds.

    The price of gold in dollars used to be set by the government. ie It was a dreaded "fiat" money.

    As many economists have noted, gold-backed dollars would be inherently deflationary.

    If the OP and other knuckleheads are so worried about this, why don't you take all your dollars and buy gold. Problem solved.
  23. Anonymous Member

    well how about this then.
    If you had put a dollar in the drawer in say 1840, and left it there until 1900, that dollar would have bought more stuff than it would have bought in 1840;

    If you had put a dollar into the drawer in 1940 and got it out in 2000, it would be worth about 10¢ or so.
    So ask yourself, do you want a dollar that gains in value over time, or a dollar that loses value over time

    go here and run the numbers yourself

    The sad thing is, you've been convinced that a less valuable dollar is somehow better for you.

    Wow, talk about a fairy tale.
    This is the power of propaganda. It can convince you that a less valuable dollar is somehow better than a more valuable dollar.

    But i suppose calling me a conspiracy theorist (lol, the designation is so absurd as to be laughable) would make you feel better.

    THe Fed is a banking cartel. I find it fascinating that the same governments that were battling Trusts and enacting the Anti Sherman Act and prosecuting cartels as restraint of trade, that that same fucking government could enact a massive Cartel while prosecuting other ones. That is the true nature of government: to prosecute you for doing what they themselves do.

    It really is a no brainer: Which do you prefer, having money that gains in purchasing power, or a money that loses purchasing power. If you want less valuable money, then congratulations, you don't have to do anything, just pick up your paycheck each week and watch inflation eat away at your sustenance.
  24. The Internet Member

    So why do most economist argue against returning to the gold standard?
  25. Anonymous Member

    That depends on whether you want to encourage money hoarders (bad for the economy) or investment (good for the economy).
    I’m still failing to see where you demonstrate why it is a bad thing…..
    You are being called a conspiracy theorist because you are making assertions not supported by evidence, are demonstrating a complete ignorance of much of that evidence, and labelling any and all people highlighting problems with your argumentation as being under the influence of propaganda. Seems reasonable to me.
    See above response. If this concerns you then invest in gold or something. That this option is available to you kind of renders your point..well..pointless.
  26. Anonymous Member

    I can’t speak for those economist, but my reasons against such include:
    - A gold standard means a fixed amount of money due to a fixed amount of gold, and this places a restriction on the money supply which, in turn, stifles economic growth.
    - Currency variations is needed to make international trade work. A dollar fixed to a gold standard would harms US trade with other countries. Less trade means less economic growth, etc.
    - In the Eurozone the ability for individual countries to devalue their own currency as a means of combating economic instability wasn’t possible because of being tied to a shared currency. The results of that are clear to see.
    - The use of the dollar in international markets is a great advantage to the US. Returning to a gold standard, and thus allowing such trades to be done in gold worth, would remove this advantage.

  27. The Internet Member

    If you can't articulate the expert consensus, then upon what basis do you make the claim that this consensus is flawed?
  28. Anonymous Member

    You know, moon bats come like a menstrual cycle.

    Only difference is that a period is a bloody waste of fucking time. the OP and this thread is just a waste.
  29. Anonymous Member

    I don't think he is claiming the consensus is flawed.

    I think he agrees with the consensus while stating that his views are his own and don't necessarily represent the views of anyone else.
    • Like Like x 1
  30. The Internet Member

    My bad. My eyes glaze over when I read about three words of this economics stuff.

    Please don't hit me for not giving a fuck and yet still participating in this conversation. At least I know that I'm ignorant.
  31. PresidentShaw Member

    • Like Like x 1
  32. Anonymous Member

    Good question. Quick answer is that consensus is not equal to the truth.

    Hoarders is a loaded term, having no validity in science. Saving is the proper term, and savings is where the money for gains in productivity comes from. So by using th term 'hoarders' you are discouraging savings, which discourages productivity gains, which means less stuff all around.

    All I am saying is why do we have money that loses value over time when there is an alternative. One last analogy. Say you see toilet paper on sale at CostCo and you buy 1000 rolls (we're all full of shit, so why not).

    Now in the current scheme of things, we would lose two rolls of every hundred every year to rats eating the paper.Not only that, but the Fed would tell you this is a good thing, that if this didn't happen bad things would happen.

    That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If it does to you, please explain why destroying value is a good thing.
  33. Anonymous Member

    No it doesn't. What it does stifle is wars. Without gold to pay, then wars end due to lack of money, With fiat money, wars are eternal. This alone is all that anyone should need to understand the immorality of fiat money. Fiat money makes world wars possible.

    The US was on a gold standard for much of the 19th century. It sure didn't stifle growth.
    And yet international trade flourished on the gold standard all through the 19th century and into the 20th. Go figure.
    You are simply repeating the talking points of the people who profit from inflationary money. And those people aren't not working stiffs trying to make ends meet, If they were, they wouldn't offer us money that loses value over time.
    What has this to do with commodity money? The Euro is not a commodity money. Tying their currency to a supra national group is the ultimate is economic suicide,
    You make a lot of assertions without a jot of support. What advantage does using the dollar confer to the US? And is this the right and moral thing to do, or is it simply that it gains us a temproary advantage at the cost of long term productivity?
  34. anonsoldier Member

    Money, also known as an arbitrary economic device that has valued assigned to it by collective consent. In this thread, some people argue the arbitrary economic device's value should be assigned to it based off the collectively perceived arbitrary value of a shiny metal substance. Other people say those people are morons.

    It's times like this when I turn to Douglas Adams: "Most of the people living on it were unhappy for pretty much of the time. Many solutions were suggested for this problem, but most of these were largely concerned with the movements of small green pieces of paper, which is odd because on the whole it wasn't the small green pieces of paper that were unhappy."
  35. anonsoldier Member

    There've been countless wars, world wide or otherwise, when countries used whatever standard. Gold, silver, pixie dust, whatever. Very few of them ended because someone ran out of money. Wars are possible because there are some people who have things and other people who don't have those things but want those things. Wars are possible because there are some people who don't like a different group of people for whatever reason and no longer want them in the neighborhood. It has nothing to do with whether a country's currency is tied to a material object. If anything, the desire to get MORE of that object for your country creates the potential for wars to erupt.

    Don't believe me? Ask the Aztecs, Inca, and Mayans their thoughts on the subject.

    Want to know what ends a war? When you have broken your enemy's will and ability to fight. That and nothing else.
  36. Exactly my point so why are we sitting here trolling? we need more info on this beast.
  37. Anonymous Member

    We have all the info we need. During a time in American history when the US government was writing laws saying that monopolies, trusts and cartels are against the law, the USG allowed the largest cartel ever to be created with the backing of the same Congress who were saying that Cartels Are Bad.

    You really can't get any more faggotry than that.

    Indoctrination works and it helps people. How else do you explain that people ITT have argued for money losing value over time as 'the way it should be'
  38. The Internet Member

    Does anyone know if we actually have any gold in Fort Knox anymore?

    My guess would be that our gold reserves got used up at some point during the Nixon administration, in black market deals for hookers, blow, guns, mercenaries, and bribes to officials in third world countries. That's why we started scamming to raise money for secret ops --e.g., Iran Contra, "Remote Viewing," and "Star Wars Missile Defense." Secret stash under the mattress all gone.

    Anyway, if we do have gold, we might want to pay down the principle on some of our loans to China, because I hear the interest is a killer.
  39. anonsoldier Member

    Yes, there is still gold at Fort Knox. The government never did anything with it, just sits there,

    The Iran-Contra scandal happened because the government was prohibited from spending money by law, so they sold weapons off the books so it couldn't be traced to the existing lines of accounting set in place, then used that money on the thing they weren't supposed to be able to. Basically, money laundering.
  40. PresidentShaw Member

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins