IntenseDebate - jpmrwb

9 years ago @ Ludwig von Mises Insti... - Can Anarcho-Capitalism... · 0 replies · 0 points

Don,
I think you smoked to much doobie during the sixties. Go into rehab and maybe then you will be able to respond to criticism to your bazarre thoughts. Of course we could all be wrong and didn't understand that you are an alien that has traveled back in time and our minds have not evolved enough to comprehend your gibberish.

10 years ago @ Ludwig von Mises Insti... - Why The Theory of Mone... · 1 reply · +7 points

It is now apparent that there might have been no World War without the Federal Reserve System. A strange sequence of events, none of which were accidental, had occurred. Without Theodore Roosevelt’s "Bull Moose" candidacy, the popular President Taft would have been reelected, and Woodrow Wilson would have returned to obscurity.* If Wilson had not been elected, we might have had no Federal Reserve Act, and World War One could have been avoided. The European nations had been led to maintain large standing armies as the policy of the central banks which dictated their governmental decisions. In April, 1887, the Quarterly Journal of Economics had pointed out:
"A detailed revue of the public debts of Europe shows interest and sinking fund payments of $5,343 million annually (five and one-third billion). M. Neymarck’s conclusion is much like Mr.Atkinson’s. The finances of Europe are so involved that the governments may ask whether war,with all its terrible chances, is not preferable to the maintenance of such a precarious and costlypeace.

10 years ago @ Ludwig von Mises Insti... - Why The Theory of Mone... · 0 replies · +7 points

Henry Morgenthau, American Ambassador to Turkey was asked why the US intended to make war in Germany. "We Americans," replied Morgenthau, speaking for the group of Harlem real estate operators of which he was the head, "are going to war for a moral principle." J.P. Morgan received the proceeds of the First Liberty Loan to pay off $400,000,000 which he advanced to Great Britain at the outset of the war. To cover this loan, $68,000,000 in notes had been issued under the provisions of the Aldrich-Vreeland Act for issuing notes against securities, the only time this provision was employed. The notes were retired as soon as the Federal Reserve Banks began operation, and replaced by Federal Reserve Notes.
The Germans, English and French wer all about bankrupt because they had spend money on their war materials and standing armies. The war would not have started to continued without the Federal Reserve bankers supplying the credit and monies needed.

10 years ago @ Ludwig von Mises Insti... - How Wilson and the Fed... · 0 replies · +3 points

You nailed it.

10 years ago @ Ludwig von Mises Insti... - Why The Theory of Mone... · 1 reply · +2 points

That was my understanding. And yes I do agree with Noah that both the politicans and the banksters are parasites. I also believe that the banksters hold the upper hand right now.

10 years ago @ Ludwig von Mises Insti... - Why The Theory of Mone... · 4 replies · -1 points

I thought the banksters ran the Federal Reserve? It is supposed to be an institution separate from the Federal Government. What real authority does the Federal Government have over the Fed?

10 years ago @ Ludwig von Mises Insti... - How Wilson and the Fed... · 0 replies · +2 points

I really don't know what mistakes you are referring? The Federal Reserve knew exactly what they were doing. The banksters owned Wilson and were making money on the war. Read about the secret meeting on Jekyll Island that outlined the plan to create the fed with the banksters in control.

10 years ago @ Ludwig von Mises Insti... - American Tariffs and W... · 2 replies · +4 points

Mr. Bovard,
I have not seen before the splitting of the reasons why the southern states seceded. You say:
After seven Southern states seceded — over slavery — Republicans in Congress rushed to enact a prohibitive tariff bill even before Lincoln took office. And then this: and six more states seceded after the Morrill tariff bill was enacted and after Lincoln mobilized troops in response to the Fort Sumter episode.
Then this: Abraham Lincoln campaigned on a promise to boost tariffs — a key factor in helping him carry Pennsylvania and win the presidency in 1860. But Lincoln’s tariff agitation further alienated Southern states and convinced many Southerners that they would be sacrificial animals for Northern industrialists.
It looks like the tariffs were the primary reason for both groups to secede, unless there is information to the contrary.

10 years ago @ Ludwig von Mises Insti... - Do We Need a Lender of... · 0 replies · +1 points

Rothbard, in "The Discovery of Money" agreed with this: As a summary of the national banking era, we can agree with John Klein that The financial panics of 1873, 1884, 1893, and 1907 were
in large part an outgrowth of . . . reserve pyramiding and excessive deposit creation by reserve city and central reserve city banks. These panics were triggered by the currency drains that took place in periods of relative prosperity when banks were loaned up.

10 years ago @ Ludwig von Mises Insti... - Do We Need a Lender of... · 0 replies · +2 points

Bullion Committee’-1810
‘The most detailed knowledge of the actual trade of a country, combined with the profound Science in all the principles of Money and circulation, would not enable any man or set of men to adjust, and keep always adjusted, the right proportion of circulating medium in a country to the wants of trade.’
Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons 1810
The ‘Bullion Committee’ of 1810 realised the virtual impossibility of the United Kingdom remaining off the gold standard when the war with the French had concluded. It realised a simple truth: that no ‘man or set of men’ could provide the appropriate amount of money for an economy. And thus it has been true ever since that central bankers, when freed from any form of monetary anchor, have created the wrong amount of money. All we have to decide is which side of wrong are they on --- too much or too little? Market movements now clearly indicate that the answer is too little.

IntenseDebate Comment System

Connect with jpmrwb

People I'm following

jpmrwb