Will the Real Ron Paul Please Stand Up?

You say you understand the present system but your question raises doubts in my mind.

Can you explain what the difference would be between a situation where the central bank is privately owned versus the situation when the central bank is owned by the State.

youngdan wrote:

You say you understand the present system but your question raises doubts in my mind.

Can you explain what the difference would be between a situation where the central bank is privately owned versus the situation when the central bank is owned by the State.

If you mean do I know its all a conspiracy by the Rothschilds to bleed us dry, well, no I don't understand it. Henry VIII would be a far more appropriate hate figure, as he cut the ties with Rome, with its Christian restrictions on usury, and introduced the credit system.

Capitalism is an economic system, not a conspiracy. One small class benefits from the work of a much bigger class though paying them less than the value they produce. The banks oil the wheels of the process.

But what about Denver?

cactus flower wrote:

youngdan wrote:

You say you understand the present system but your question raises doubts in my mind.

Can you explain what the difference would be between a situation where the central bank is privately owned versus the situation when the central bank is owned by the State.

If you mean do I know its all a conspiracy by the Rothschilds to bleed us dry, well, no I don't understand it. Henry VIII would be a far more appropriate hate figure, as he cut the ties with Rome, with its Christian restrictions on usury, and introduced the credit system.

Capitalism is an economic system, not a conspiracy. One small class benefits from the work of a much bigger class though paying them less than the value they produce. The banks oil the wheels of the process.

No it was a straight question to try to ascertain your level of understanding. For example the Bank of England was nationalised by the government after the war so it is an example of the central bank being owned by the state. The Federal reserve was obviousely never nationalised so it is not owned by the state.

If you want to continue without knowing why this is a crucial difference there is little point talking about bonds.

Youngdan this is all very familiar both from your own explanations last year and other material I've read.

What would be new would be for you to give any kind of account of how Ron Paul would run a functioning economy.

It may be familiar but it takes a bit more study that reading web sites. For example, it a central bank is part of the government then when it buys government bonds the interest the government pays on the bonds goes back into the Treasury. If the central bank is private the interest goes to private individuals who own the central bank. This is the small potatoes.

The large potatoes is the profit made from the foreknowledge of the amount of liquidity in markets going forward. You know the direction of the market in advance.

The very large potatoes is what I will call the bailout. For example the Irish bonds of circa 50 billion look as they are about to default and the owners lose 50 billion. If the ECB steps in and buys them the bond holders get their 50 billion. The money is printed so the real cost through inflation is spread over the 500 million EU inhabitants. Everyone is happy, the banksters get 50 billion and the 500 million dummies never figure out they got the shaft. They are told it was them who are getting a bailout and the morons believe it.

Anyway maybe the morons are better off not knowing.

With regard Ron Paul this article from today answers your question. For a more detailed understanding you can pick the book up in Easons. The chances of you doing so are about zero

http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory179.html

Quote :

The book has a wonderful treatment of how the central bank makes us poorer, finances tyranny and corporate welfare, and brings on the business cycle and recession. What’s more, he does all this with such clarity and depth that it will be impossible to honestly and intelligently dismiss it as nothing but crankiness, paranoia, and gold fetishism, as some have done in the past.

That was all there was on the economy. I'd say our public library has a copy of the book

That is just one person's critique of the book. We are made poorer by inflation and supplies money to finance wars.

It is a small book aimed at the masses so the central bank gets about 10 pages. Not all Paulites agree. Some would be happy to nationalise the Federal Reserve and leave the dollar a fiat currency unbacked by anything. They would argue that in this way the government could fiddle with the money supply to sooth a recession but still save the 500 billion interest paid on the bonds each year.

I would guess that close to a third of the 1.3 million votes he got were democrats who changed to republican to support Paul. These people either voted for Obama or a 3rd party or stayed at home in the November election. They did not vote for McCain as they hate the republicans

youngdan wrote:

It would only enslave 5%. The other 95% would be dead. I said this a year ago and ye thought I was crazy. Now it just appears ridiculous. In 3 months it will appear a remote possibility. Check out the Georgia Guidestones

Long overdue.

http://www.infowars.com/georgia-guidestones-vandalized/

Liamnag01 wrote:

youngdan wrote:

It would only enslave 5%. The other 95% would be dead. I said this a year ago and ye thought I was crazy. Now it just appears ridiculous. In 3 months it will appear a remote possibility. Check out the Georgia Guidestones

Long overdue.

http://www.infowars.com/georgia-guidestones-vandalized/

Oh dear. Is this what the level of polticial discussion is in the US currently?

Quote :

THE MESSAGE OF THE GEORGIA GUIDESTONES

1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
2. Guide reproduction wisely - improving fitness and diversity.
3. Unite humanity with a living new language.
4. Rule passion - faith - tradition - and all things with tempered reason.
5. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
6. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
7. Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
8. Balance personal rights with social duties.
9. Prize truth - beauty - love - seeking harmony with the infinite.
10.Be not a cancer on the earth - Leave room for nature - Leave room for nature

.

That all sounds pretty desperate stuff.

Number one poses a problem all right. It would take many generations for us to reduce our population to that level peacefully. The question of what population level can be sustained by the planet long term is well worth discussing - we have a thread on it somewhere, I'll try to dig it out.

The biggest threat of mass extermination of population I suppose is nuclear war. The other is bird flu or some other epidemic. I'm not a mathematician: would anyone say how long we'd have to be having 1.5 children per couple for our population to go down that much?

cactus flower wrote:

Liamnag01 wrote:

youngdan wrote:

It would only enslave 5%. The other 95% would be dead. I said this a year ago and ye thought I was crazy. Now it just appears ridiculous. In 3 months it will appear a remote possibility. Check out the Georgia Guidestones

Long overdue.

http://www.infowars.com/georgia-guidestones-vandalized/

Oh dear. Is this what the level of polticial discussion is in the US currently?

Quote :

THE MESSAGE OF THE GEORGIA GUIDESTONES

1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
2. Guide reproduction wisely - improving fitness and diversity.
3. Unite humanity with a living new language.
4. Rule passion - faith - tradition - and all things with tempered reason.
5. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
6. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
7. Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
8. Balance personal rights with social duties.
9. Prize truth - beauty - love - seeking harmony with the infinite.
10.Be not a cancer on the earth - Leave room for nature - Leave room for nature

.

That all sounds pretty desperate stuff.

Number one poses a problem all right. It would take many generations for us to reduce our population to that level peacefully. The question of what population level can be sustained by the planet long term is well worth discussing - we have a thread on it somewhere, I'll try to dig it out.

The biggest threat of mass extermination of population I suppose is nuclear war. The other is bird flu or some other epidemic. I'm not a mathematician: would anyone say how long we'd have to be having 1.5 children per couple for our population to go down that much?

The popultion of the EU is 500 million, so were ok then

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1YZwAQALUw

Here we have a democrat who seems to be a Paulite.

Some left leaning people have correctly identified the problem. She quotes Jefferson who was an origonal democrat.

These type of democrat voters were a major part of Paul's 1.3 million votes.

This woman was recomended to me recently and I will be checking

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_sCQk5s3sw

This is the choice. The US will face it but Ireland also.