Audit the Fed
- Thread starter wkmac
- Start date
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
I'll do it for the right price. I'll even promise I will be just as efficient and timely as any other government program.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
In otherwords, this is nothing but AV's retirement plan!
It's like any gov't program and the EverReady Rabbit, it just keeps going and going and going and going and ................................................
...............................................................................................
...............................................................................................
...............................................................................................
.............................................................................................
.............................................................................................
.............................................................................................
.............................................................................................
................................
............................................................................................
....................................................
wkmac
Well-Known Member
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
"Fed lawyer Kit Wheatley told Preska in a conference call today that she did not know how long it would take for the Fed board to search the New York Fed for records."
“We really don’t know what’s in New York,” Wheatley said. “We don’t control the system of record-keeping in New York.”
My goodness. What can you say to that?
wkmac
Well-Known Member
US Bank Enemies At the Gates
Then again, from this news maybe if China does help implode the Fed and our disaster of a monetary system, they may help a return to a better system. Funny ain't it. A bunch of commies turning the mighty America back towards some form of honest monetary system. No wonder the investment sage Jim Rogers moved lock, stock and barrel to China.
And more shocking news!
Yesterday, the Huffington Post ran as it's headline in bold red, "AUDIT THE FED" with the following article of Barney Frank declaring HR 1207 being passed this fall. Politico ran a similar story. And yes, you are correct in that we should watch for monkey business and in the case of Frank I would expect such. However, HR 1207's most important aspect has been to force a more open and larger conversation about the central bank and our monetary system among a growing group within the population core. Pass or not, HR 1207 IMO has been a huge success just in that point alone.
In fact, the best thing to happen is to pass HR 1207 with the people expecting one thing and then it becomes obvious that the people in power are doing something quite different in that even the most dull knife in the drawer can see the power elite are protecting it's own scam. This drives further distrust of the current 2 party system and in truth would be healthy for America.
Watching this YouTube of Barney Frank, I really have to wonder if the vocal sniping (as in a snipe hunt) by political Statists over healthcare at Town Hall meetings are really more a cover and the true anger is over people like this gentleman below asking the wrong question in front of all those people who may do the worse thing possible for the central state and that is to begin to think!
[video=youtube;J2DX9Iu4wNo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2DX9Iu4wNo[/video]
Speaking of healthcare, did anyone ever consider the cost of healthcare in relation to the shrinking value of the dollar? I mean in 1913' the dollar had a true purchasing power of $1 whereas now because of debt and the printing press, in 1913' terms, our dollar is worth less than $.05. With the recent addition of debt, would the expectation be for the 5 cent value to go up or to go down and what would this do to healthcare?
If Barney Frank and others are so concerned about the cost of healthcare, then why not first give us a honest monetary system whose monetary unit maintains it's value over time and where Wall Street power players and their gov't lackeyes can't manipulate the currency system via toying with true interest rates which in turn harm those on fixed income but devaluing over time their hard earned savings. Also by inflating the currency, you place the poor into a fruitless effort of chasing something that's nearly impossible to achieve via hardwork and thrift alone, something that was once the backbone of American greatness.
And the more important question, does the gov't benefit from inflation as it relates to debt and if we had deflation making the dollar more valuable, what would this do to gov't and it's debt structure? What would it do to tax revenues? Does there now become a much larger reason why certain interests wouldn't want a full and complete audit of the Fed?
If in 1913' we got the Federal Reserve which allowed the gov't to use a private banking cartel to create debt out of thin air for their (gov't) benefit (give the people now for the vote at election time and pass the payment for into the future) so what manner of revenue would the gov't use to pay back this debt. With Social Security we got a SS tax, with the highway system we got a excise tax, with medicare we got a tax, with healthcare, we are seeing proposals of various taxes depending on the plan so when gov't creates something, it also creates a tax system along with it to pay for it all, well supposedly anyway.
So with this creation of debt beginning in 1913' what might have also been created to pay for this over time (hint, 2/3/1913') and as the debt has increased, has the reach of this means of taxation increased with it? Could an audit expose this relationship and would it become obvious to all that the only need for this tax system was to service a debt to a private banking cartel and not really needed to buidling roads, libaries, schools and other functions of gov't people tend to expect?
Don't think to hard because this is very dangerous to the central state!
Then again, from this news maybe if China does help implode the Fed and our disaster of a monetary system, they may help a return to a better system. Funny ain't it. A bunch of commies turning the mighty America back towards some form of honest monetary system. No wonder the investment sage Jim Rogers moved lock, stock and barrel to China.
And more shocking news!
Yesterday, the Huffington Post ran as it's headline in bold red, "AUDIT THE FED" with the following article of Barney Frank declaring HR 1207 being passed this fall. Politico ran a similar story. And yes, you are correct in that we should watch for monkey business and in the case of Frank I would expect such. However, HR 1207's most important aspect has been to force a more open and larger conversation about the central bank and our monetary system among a growing group within the population core. Pass or not, HR 1207 IMO has been a huge success just in that point alone.
In fact, the best thing to happen is to pass HR 1207 with the people expecting one thing and then it becomes obvious that the people in power are doing something quite different in that even the most dull knife in the drawer can see the power elite are protecting it's own scam. This drives further distrust of the current 2 party system and in truth would be healthy for America.
Watching this YouTube of Barney Frank, I really have to wonder if the vocal sniping (as in a snipe hunt) by political Statists over healthcare at Town Hall meetings are really more a cover and the true anger is over people like this gentleman below asking the wrong question in front of all those people who may do the worse thing possible for the central state and that is to begin to think!
[video=youtube;J2DX9Iu4wNo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2DX9Iu4wNo[/video]
Speaking of healthcare, did anyone ever consider the cost of healthcare in relation to the shrinking value of the dollar? I mean in 1913' the dollar had a true purchasing power of $1 whereas now because of debt and the printing press, in 1913' terms, our dollar is worth less than $.05. With the recent addition of debt, would the expectation be for the 5 cent value to go up or to go down and what would this do to healthcare?
If Barney Frank and others are so concerned about the cost of healthcare, then why not first give us a honest monetary system whose monetary unit maintains it's value over time and where Wall Street power players and their gov't lackeyes can't manipulate the currency system via toying with true interest rates which in turn harm those on fixed income but devaluing over time their hard earned savings. Also by inflating the currency, you place the poor into a fruitless effort of chasing something that's nearly impossible to achieve via hardwork and thrift alone, something that was once the backbone of American greatness.
And the more important question, does the gov't benefit from inflation as it relates to debt and if we had deflation making the dollar more valuable, what would this do to gov't and it's debt structure? What would it do to tax revenues? Does there now become a much larger reason why certain interests wouldn't want a full and complete audit of the Fed?
If in 1913' we got the Federal Reserve which allowed the gov't to use a private banking cartel to create debt out of thin air for their (gov't) benefit (give the people now for the vote at election time and pass the payment for into the future) so what manner of revenue would the gov't use to pay back this debt. With Social Security we got a SS tax, with the highway system we got a excise tax, with medicare we got a tax, with healthcare, we are seeing proposals of various taxes depending on the plan so when gov't creates something, it also creates a tax system along with it to pay for it all, well supposedly anyway.
So with this creation of debt beginning in 1913' what might have also been created to pay for this over time (hint, 2/3/1913') and as the debt has increased, has the reach of this means of taxation increased with it? Could an audit expose this relationship and would it become obvious to all that the only need for this tax system was to service a debt to a private banking cartel and not really needed to buidling roads, libaries, schools and other functions of gov't people tend to expect?
Don't think to hard because this is very dangerous to the central state!
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
I guess I just have a difficult time accepting that as a measure of success. Seems like you've lowered the bar a bit there.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
I guess I just have a difficult time accepting that as a measure of success. Seems like you've lowered the bar a bit there.
Actually raised it!
P
pickup
Guest
US Bank Enemies At the Gates
Then again, from this news maybe if China does help implode the Fed and our disaster of a monetary system, they may help a return to a better system. Funny ain't it. A bunch of commies turning the mighty America back towards some form of honest monetary system. No wonder the investment sage Jim Rogers moved lock, stock and barrel to China.
And more shocking news!
Yesterday, the Huffington Post ran as it's headline in bold red, "AUDIT THE FED" with the following article of Barney Frank declaring HR 1207 being passed this fall. Politico ran a similar story. And yes, you are correct in that we should watch for monkey business and in the case of Frank I would expect such. However, HR 1207's most important aspect has been to force a more open and larger conversation about the central bank and our monetary system among a growing group within the population core. Pass or not, HR 1207 IMO has been a huge success just in that point alone.
In fact, the best thing to happen is to pass HR 1207 with the people expecting one thing and then it becomes obvious that the people in power are doing something quite different in that even the most dull knife in the drawer can see the power elite are protecting it's own scam. This drives further distrust of the current 2 party system and in truth would be healthy for America.
Watching this YouTube of Barney Frank, I really have to wonder if the vocal sniping (as in a snipe hunt) by political Statists over healthcare at Town Hall meetings are really more a cover and the true anger is over people like this gentleman below asking the wrong question in front of all those people who may do the worse thing possible for the central state and that is to begin to think!
YouTube - Barney Frank Says House Will Pass HR1207 in October
Speaking of healthcare, did anyone ever consider the cost of healthcare in relation to the shrinking value of the dollar? I mean in 1913' the dollar had a true purchasing power of $1 whereas now because of debt and the printing press, in 1913' terms, our dollar is worth less than $.05. With the recent addition of debt, would the expectation be for the 5 cent value to go up or to go down and what would this do to healthcare?
If Barney Frank and others are so concerned about the cost of healthcare, then why not first give us a honest monetary system whose monetary unit maintains it's value over time and where Wall Street power players and their gov't lackeyes can't manipulate the currency system via toying with true interest rates which in turn harm those on fixed income but devaluing over time their hard earned savings. Also by inflating the currency, you place the poor into a fruitless effort of chasing something that's nearly impossible to achieve via hardwork and thrift alone, something that was once the backbone of American greatness.
And the more important question, does the gov't benefit from inflation as it relates to debt and if we had deflation making the dollar more valuable, what would this do to gov't and it's debt structure? What would it do to tax revenues? Does there now become a much larger reason why certain interests wouldn't want a full and complete audit of the Fed?
If in 1913' we got the Federal Reserve which allowed the gov't to use a private banking cartel to create debt out of thin air for their (gov't) benefit (give the people now for the vote at election time and pass the payment for into the future) so what manner of revenue would the gov't use to pay back this debt. With Social Security we got a SS tax, with the highway system we got a excise tax, with medicare we got a tax, with healthcare, we are seeing proposals of various taxes depending on the plan so when gov't creates something, it also creates a tax system along with it to pay for it all, well supposedly anyway.
So with this creation of debt beginning in 1913' what might have also been created to pay for this over time (hint, 2/3/1913') and as the debt has increased, has the reach of this means of taxation increased with it? Could an audit expose this relationship and would it become obvious to all that the only need for this tax system was to service a debt to a private banking cartel and not really needed to buidling roads, libaries, schools and other functions of gov't people tend to expect?
Don't think to hard because this is very dangerous to the central state!
I'll throw you a bone just to show I still pay attention, that question with the hint of 2//3/09. Gee, could that have something to do with the ratification(supposed??) of the 16th amendment .
wkmac
Well-Known Member
One Year After Crisis, "Too Big to Fail" Banks Have Grown Even Bigger
The Big Get Bigger
FDIC Cupboard Very Bare
Some Reasons the Federal Reserve Should End
Rise and Fall of the Dollar: 1800 to 2009
At that last link, it should be obvious the steady drop of the dollar over the 20th century and during that same time period as I've posted this before, here is a comparison of how many current dollars over time it would take to equal the value of a single $1 in 1913' when the quasi-gov't/actually private Fed was created. If the 20th century picture being true with a central bank and the quite opposite effect in the 19th century without a central bank minus 2 periods of war (2 avoidable wars I might add) then one has to also ask this question IMO.
In the 19th century, the dollars value over time went up to where a single dollar had the purchasing power of $2 dollars in goods and services. In other words, prices actually fell as true efficencies in the market were allowed to be enjoyed by the people who purchased such goods and services. Workers were never chasing a raise to maintain a standard of wealth because with natural market deflation with an honest monetary system automatically increased their wealth and purchasing power. Going to that last link I posted look at the value of a dollar in 2008' to the 1913' and imagine if you will that over a period of time, you pay stayed the same but prices fell to the point of what they were in 1985'. How many of us would love to go to 1985' but make the same wage or salary that we do today? Our wages and salaries don't go up in true value but are in fact chasing an ever declining dollar trying to maintain a standard of wealth and living. Those on fixed income or the poor benefitted because the goal line was never moving away but rather always sliding down to them making it easier to move out from such conditions if one put the least bit of effort into it. But then how does such a natural economic occurrance from an honest monetary system benefit or empower those who seek power and wish to do so by exploiting the mal-conditions of others? Be hard wouldn't it. In order to do that, you'd need an economic and monetary system that creates such conditions in order to manipulate and benefit from in the first place.
But around the turn of the century and the Spanish American War, a major paradigm shift in America was taking place and we've never looked back on our roller coaster ride down to the point now that the dollar is worth less than a nickle. We're at the bottom people, we can't go that much further. And here's another question for your. Granted compared to today 19th century healthcare was not the best but in it's time of an ever stronger increasing value dollar, what do you think the cost of healthcare at that time was doing? Again, the reverse being true, what are healthcare costs doing today?
Are we being played for a fool?
Ironically the progressive movement was as much a religious one or at least heavily driven and I guess it goes back to our European heritage of being tossed to and fro by religious forces interwined with the State in order to protect the "Dark Con of Man!"
As Rothbard pointed out as to immigration from Europe, this was also a focus by others on the subject so it would seem the issue of immigration has long been a keystone of advancing and growing gov't as well.
Let's build a wall so we can't leav.....uh keep the nasty immigrants out!
The Big Get Bigger
FDIC Cupboard Very Bare
Some Reasons the Federal Reserve Should End
Rise and Fall of the Dollar: 1800 to 2009
At that last link, it should be obvious the steady drop of the dollar over the 20th century and during that same time period as I've posted this before, here is a comparison of how many current dollars over time it would take to equal the value of a single $1 in 1913' when the quasi-gov't/actually private Fed was created. If the 20th century picture being true with a central bank and the quite opposite effect in the 19th century without a central bank minus 2 periods of war (2 avoidable wars I might add) then one has to also ask this question IMO.
In the 19th century, the dollars value over time went up to where a single dollar had the purchasing power of $2 dollars in goods and services. In other words, prices actually fell as true efficencies in the market were allowed to be enjoyed by the people who purchased such goods and services. Workers were never chasing a raise to maintain a standard of wealth because with natural market deflation with an honest monetary system automatically increased their wealth and purchasing power. Going to that last link I posted look at the value of a dollar in 2008' to the 1913' and imagine if you will that over a period of time, you pay stayed the same but prices fell to the point of what they were in 1985'. How many of us would love to go to 1985' but make the same wage or salary that we do today? Our wages and salaries don't go up in true value but are in fact chasing an ever declining dollar trying to maintain a standard of wealth and living. Those on fixed income or the poor benefitted because the goal line was never moving away but rather always sliding down to them making it easier to move out from such conditions if one put the least bit of effort into it. But then how does such a natural economic occurrance from an honest monetary system benefit or empower those who seek power and wish to do so by exploiting the mal-conditions of others? Be hard wouldn't it. In order to do that, you'd need an economic and monetary system that creates such conditions in order to manipulate and benefit from in the first place.
But around the turn of the century and the Spanish American War, a major paradigm shift in America was taking place and we've never looked back on our roller coaster ride down to the point now that the dollar is worth less than a nickle. We're at the bottom people, we can't go that much further. And here's another question for your. Granted compared to today 19th century healthcare was not the best but in it's time of an ever stronger increasing value dollar, what do you think the cost of healthcare at that time was doing? Again, the reverse being true, what are healthcare costs doing today?
Are we being played for a fool?
Ironically the progressive movement was as much a religious one or at least heavily driven and I guess it goes back to our European heritage of being tossed to and fro by religious forces interwined with the State in order to protect the "Dark Con of Man!"
As Rothbard pointed out as to immigration from Europe, this was also a focus by others on the subject so it would seem the issue of immigration has long been a keystone of advancing and growing gov't as well.
Let's build a wall so we can't leav.....uh keep the nasty immigrants out!
wkmac
Well-Known Member
JimJimmyJames
Big Time Feeder Driver
Ironically the progressive movement was as much a religious one or at least heavily driven and I guess it goes back to our European heritage of being tossed to and fro by religious forces interwined with the State in order to protect the "Dark Con of Man!"
Interesting link which leaves me conflicted.
On the one hand I identify with those who would work to "homogenize" our society. The "melting pot" concept to me is critical for America in order to retain the domestic peace and properity we have enjoyed for most of our countries existence.
The diversity model that is being so vigorously pushed today I fear may be pushing us down the path of "Balkanization". History is red from the blood spilt over people trying to desperately maintain their group identity at all costs.
Isn't our "great experiment" supposed to eliminate that?
But, on the other hand, I have a strong anti-puritanical streak in me. I resent the constant intrusion society and government makes on our private lives.
How to resolve the two? I am not sure but I support attempts to limit legal immigration and eliminate illegal immigration.
I also support legislation that gives parents more power and choice over their children's education.
What I find ironic in that article is that while the WASP's kept wringing their hands over these new immigrants and their ways and customs, it took years and years for them to cut off the flow of immigration.
Do you think they liked the low cost labor so much that as long as the WASPs had power they were just fine with all these immigrants, but when these immigrants started to gain political power themselves, it became a different ballgame for the WASPs?
It just goes to show, when it comes to sustaining an unsustainable way of life, we will keep exploiting, from the African-American slave, to the Irish, the Chinese, and now to the Latino illegals.
And, according to the WASPs, they all can be a part of America, as long as they don't want to control the show.
Anyways, like I said, I am conflicted
.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Jim,
The word progressive today is often associated with "liberal" and/or "democrat" but in it's orgins in 19th century American politics, it was clearly a republican movement. This is just a tip of the iceberg but it is food for thought. I also believe a lot of "democrats" today are really republicans in an older sense.
On a humorous note, I always liked this quote by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Tucker
As to progressivism being a movement of society elites (WASPs if you will but the truth is much broader) yes, I would concur in that but go one step forward in that the reason these elites do so is to create "their world" and then use gov't as a mechanism to protect those self serving interests. I believe these utopianist have been driving and guiding public policy for years and trying their damnest to make all of us into some single image that their religion drives them towards.
In the movie Food Inc. Smithfield Foods has a large plant in NC which it's known by all to employ illegal aliens. To keep a working situation to their liking, the movie clearly showed IMO where Smithfield of some regular basis provided details on where a certain group of aliens live which the Immigration agents would then raid and deport for public consumption and in the meantime Smithfields production line was never impacted. It literally has become a part of the business model.
Now we can argue all day long about illegal aliens but the fact remains there is a more unseen gov't/business partnership in this deal so instead of taking it out on the poor alien, we need to take a much closer look elsewhere and if so many businesses moved south of the border and treaties expediated this, then why the problem of so many coming north to find work?
Hmmmm!
The word progressive today is often associated with "liberal" and/or "democrat" but in it's orgins in 19th century American politics, it was clearly a republican movement. This is just a tip of the iceberg but it is food for thought. I also believe a lot of "democrats" today are really republicans in an older sense.
On a humorous note, I always liked this quote by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Tucker
As to progressivism being a movement of society elites (WASPs if you will but the truth is much broader) yes, I would concur in that but go one step forward in that the reason these elites do so is to create "their world" and then use gov't as a mechanism to protect those self serving interests. I believe these utopianist have been driving and guiding public policy for years and trying their damnest to make all of us into some single image that their religion drives them towards.
In the movie Food Inc. Smithfield Foods has a large plant in NC which it's known by all to employ illegal aliens. To keep a working situation to their liking, the movie clearly showed IMO where Smithfield of some regular basis provided details on where a certain group of aliens live which the Immigration agents would then raid and deport for public consumption and in the meantime Smithfields production line was never impacted. It literally has become a part of the business model.
Now we can argue all day long about illegal aliens but the fact remains there is a more unseen gov't/business partnership in this deal so instead of taking it out on the poor alien, we need to take a much closer look elsewhere and if so many businesses moved south of the border and treaties expediated this, then why the problem of so many coming north to find work?
Hmmmm!
JimJimmyJames
Big Time Feeder Driver
That is what I find ironic about NAFTA. Here was a program that was supposedly going to help our friends south of the border. Maybe it did to some extent. But then why do we have the massive illegal immigration problem with Mexico? Makes you wonder...
Believe me, I know we Americans and the Mexicans are both being manipulated by our respective governments to benefit the corporate cartels of the world.
I do not hold it against the illegals who seek only a better a life for their families.
But what worries me, besides the massive influx of workers who naturally drive wages lower and also demand, since they are poor, more from our welfare state in the form of healthcare and social services, is the cultural impact.
Now this is where I may sound elitist but being of Irish descent and being raised Catholic, I can say this without prejudice. Since most of our illegal immigration is coming from South and Central America, can America successfully incorporate so many from countries, that in comparison to ours, might be deemed failures?
And are these countries failures because they embrace Catholicism? For if you look throughout the world, those cultures who have as their primary religion Catholicism, have historically been poorer than those who don't. At least in the Americas (and Ireland, natch).
This explantion would be inline with Marx's classic observation of religion being the "opiate of the masses". A priesthood, who obsessively preaches that our rewards are in the next world, in league with wealthy benefactors, creates societies where there are the minority haves, and the vast majority have nots.
Or am I misreading this entirely. Are these countries failures because of our machinations in their affairs?
Probably both reasons.
Maybe I doth protest too much. If these immigrants were happy with the status quo, they would simply stay in their home countries. This desire for improvement reminds me a lot of earlier positive immigration movements.
But the potential problem is, will subsequent generations born to these immigrants retain the desire to improve their lot by resisting the status quo, or will they simply allow themselves to be recruited to our current welfare state of mind?
What this has to do with auditing the Fed I do not know. Sorry for hijacking the thread.
Believe me, I know we Americans and the Mexicans are both being manipulated by our respective governments to benefit the corporate cartels of the world.
I do not hold it against the illegals who seek only a better a life for their families.
But what worries me, besides the massive influx of workers who naturally drive wages lower and also demand, since they are poor, more from our welfare state in the form of healthcare and social services, is the cultural impact.
Now this is where I may sound elitist but being of Irish descent and being raised Catholic, I can say this without prejudice. Since most of our illegal immigration is coming from South and Central America, can America successfully incorporate so many from countries, that in comparison to ours, might be deemed failures?
And are these countries failures because they embrace Catholicism? For if you look throughout the world, those cultures who have as their primary religion Catholicism, have historically been poorer than those who don't. At least in the Americas (and Ireland, natch
).This explantion would be inline with Marx's classic observation of religion being the "opiate of the masses". A priesthood, who obsessively preaches that our rewards are in the next world, in league with wealthy benefactors, creates societies where there are the minority haves, and the vast majority have nots.
Or am I misreading this entirely. Are these countries failures because of our machinations in their affairs?
Probably both reasons.
Maybe I doth protest too much. If these immigrants were happy with the status quo, they would simply stay in their home countries. This desire for improvement reminds me a lot of earlier positive immigration movements.
But the potential problem is, will subsequent generations born to these immigrants retain the desire to improve their lot by resisting the status quo, or will they simply allow themselves to be recruited to our current welfare state of mind?
What this has to do with auditing the Fed I do not know. Sorry for hijacking the thread
.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
In this clip around the 2 minute mark, Ron Paul makes the claim that the Federal Reserve is in effect a power unto itself.
Is this the rantings of a nutjob or is there some merit to this claim?
None other than Alan Greenspan himself confirms Paul's claim at the 7:40 minute mark of this interview.
Are Ron and Austrian economic/free market types starting to have some effect? Listen late in this vid where even Arianna Huffington admitted our economy isn't true free market. (see at the 7:50 minute mark)
Only Ron has had the guts to point the finger at Keynes!
jmo
CNBC reviews Ron's new book"End the Fed"
Poll at end of review asks how many want to end the Fed. With just under 10k voting, 89% say end the Fed. I won't say this poll is scientific by any means but 5 years ago you probably couldn't find 89 people who wanted to end the Fed so not bad IMO.
Is this the rantings of a nutjob or is there some merit to this claim?
None other than Alan Greenspan himself confirms Paul's claim at the 7:40 minute mark of this interview.
Are Ron and Austrian economic/free market types starting to have some effect? Listen late in this vid where even Arianna Huffington admitted our economy isn't true free market. (see at the 7:50 minute mark)
Only Ron has had the guts to point the finger at Keynes!
jmo
CNBC reviews Ron's new book"End the Fed"
Poll at end of review asks how many want to end the Fed. With just under 10k voting, 89% say end the Fed. I won't say this poll is scientific by any means but 5 years ago you probably couldn't find 89 people who wanted to end the Fed so not bad IMO.
Should the Fed be abolished? * 9851 responses
89% Yes
5.8%No
5% Not sure
Not a scientific survey.
Last edited:
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Similar threads
