|
Author
|
Topic :
Kennedy vs. the Federal Reserve System
|
anton
Member
|
 posted
On
7/29/2007
Someone here once posed the question as to what I thought it would take to get significant and lasting change underway -- out of our current nightmare and into a brighter future.
I replied that job one was to take control of the financial system. People thought I was crazy for this, probably.
The link below is to an excellent overview of why President Kennedy was assasinated. The author, focusing on United States Notes, does not seem to be aware if the millions of silver dollars minted and then melted down after his death as well.
Presidents Lincoln and Garfield were assasinated for the same reason, by the way. Control of the money supply means, in the end, control of everything and everybody.
http://www.gnosticliberationfront.com/jfk_vs_the_federal_reserve.htm
Posts:
|
| Directory :
|
Ron
Member
|
posted
On
7/10/2007
Anton, a good article, but it seems that the author missed in all of the predicitions! Inflation has been kept neglible for the last 30 or so years, at least since the debacle of the Jimmy Carter administration! The last 20 or so years have shown a record low in unemployment, record highs in the stock markets, and low, low interest rates!
Labor demand is so great that we are told that we need the 12 to 20 million illegals here just to keep things going at a good clip! Record low interest rates have seen home ownership, as a percentage of the population reach new highs!
Even great disasters, like the huge hurricanes, 9/11, the war in the Middle East, etc., have not especially weakened the economy, nor has our balance of trade problems!
American productivity has been at all time highs!
In essence, things are better today than ever!
Maybe the FED is really doing a good job?
Also, note that for many years, the price of silver and gold was restricted and fixed, that is gold was fixed at $20 per ounce and silver at $5! Since I am somewhat of a "money backed by bullion" type of guy, I never did understand the theory which failed to allow gold to float? IE, naturally rising prices of gold and silver bullion, would naturally allow the available "backed" money supply to increase!
But, what do I know about economics?
Ron
Posts:
|
| Directory :
|
anton
Member
|
posted
On
7/11/2007
Ron, my friend : your (fixed) beliefs are colliding with reality here.
In 1960 a builder put up a modest-size model house on a lot beside a highway where I grew up. A sign in front of it said "This house on your lot : $9,999.99.
Over the years the price kept going up until they finally sold it to someone. Today,in that location, it would cost well over $100,000 to buy -- and probably need some upgrades.
At that same time, a very nice Stradivari violin was worth around $100,000.00 (I was an aspiring violinist and had a natural interest in this sort of thing). Today's value = +/- $3,500,000.00
A Sartori violin bow cost about $100 then. Today, around 6,000 (+).
A new Volkswagen then cost something like what ? Less than $2,000. Today ?
This is inflation, amigo. Undisguised by professional liars and politically-motivated spin doctors. (Recall here Lenny Bruce's comedy number about calling the hotel desk clerk to send a prostitute up to his room and, when he the door, finds a bearded man in a tweed jacket with a typewriter).
This did not all start with Carter's era. It's been cumulative since 1853 (not a misprint. Eighteen Fifty-Three. The year that silver was "de-monitized," worldwide in one stroke by the central bankers).
If you really want to understand the net effect of the stranglehold that the gold-forces had on the ACTUAL world economy from 1900 through 1960, go to Advanced Book Exchange (a second-handbook dealer's collective) and get yourself a copy of Quigley's Tragedy and Hope. Seriously. It's a great education in what actually happened during those years.
PS : Your books are going out to you today. You might want to allow my e-mails to bypass your spam filter : )
Posts:
|
| Directory :
|
Ron
Member
|
posted
On
7/29/2007
Bill, I hope and feel you really are a friend?
What you posed to me, did not really disclose any real "reality", as to describe real inflation!
It seems that you and I look at the same information and come (for what ever reason you might ever understand) to differing opinions!
Certainly, the home of mine in Memphis, which was purchased for $13.500 in about 1961 CE, has progressed to over $100,000 today (maybe $150, 000)!
But, Bill, any low forcast of inflation, would make it so!
Look, Sir Bill, it is historically correct that the price of certain life styles has progressed, along with the Democratic (Yes, the Democrats / IE LIberals) view, and has, in many ways, although, not "democratic" or correct, led to what you seem to see as "inflation!" Thus,what I refer to is/are raises made in percentage increases across the board! (Note, this is where I will leave out my opinions, so as not to interfer with other's views oin the same subject)
But, as I have made myself clear, for a lot of readers, on other sites, there always exists the "liberal" or if you prefer it "conservative" idea that raises, especialy, within the Federal Government sector, should be applied at a per centage raises, makes the entire process, over 50 years or so, "not fair!"!
Thus, to make it simple, the "governmment", in it's attempt to make all raises "equal" , then made raises as a fixed percentage! A fixtue which has made the very same raises as "immoral!"
Since, I consider you as the most "literate" person on this site, then you should readily agree with me, that what you consider as "real inflation", is directly related to the designs of governmental control over "raises!"
Regards,
Ron
Posts:
|
| Directory :
|
Ron
Member
|
posted
On
7/12/2007
And Anton you wrote;
"Ron, my friend : your (fixed) beliefs are colliding with reality here.
In 1960 a builder put up a modest-size model house on a lot beside a highway where I grew up. A sign in front of it said "This house on your lot : $9,999.99.
Over the years the price kept going up until they finally sold it to someone. Today,in that location, it would cost well over $100,000 to buy -- and probably need some upgrades.
At that same time, a very nice Stradivari violin was worth around $100,000.00 (I was an aspiring violinist and had a natural interest in this sort of thing). Today's value = +/- $3,500,000.00
A Sartori violin bow cost about $100 then. Today, around 6,000 (+).
A new Volkswagen then cost something like what ? Less than $2,000. Today ?"
Sure it is, in part, inflation! No argument there!
But, also in 1960 or so, a good paying job with the Federal Government say a GS-7 position did not pay but $7,000 per annum or less! More than likely the pay was closer to $6,000! Savings accounts probably paid about 2% interest, a full lunch at a cafe would set you back about 60 to 75 cents! You could post a letter for 3 cents or so!
Cokes were a nickel, as were candy bars, etc. Gasoline was probably 15 or 20 cents a gallon, never mind the constant price wars!!
My 1968 Pontiac GTO listed for $4,200 or so! My last new car listed for $31,000. I would contend that the cars are about equal, thus the difference in price from 1968 to 2001 was $26,000!
A gallon of milk, delivered to your door by the milkman may have cost you but 25 to 30 cents? (of course today a gallon of mik has balooned to $4!)
A loaf of bread a nickle or a dime, and could be purchased hot right out of the ovens if you chose!
Tickets to a movie with buttered popcorn and a drink might run you $1.00 to $1.25, and that was at a first class theatre! Neighborhood theatres were much less! Heck, I have seen kids get a ticket for a nickel, a coke for a nickel and a popcorn for a nickel
Today that same GS-7 position might pay one about $45,000 PA or more!
My point is, wages also increased, and as wages increase so do prices! A quite obvious relationship seems to exist on this point! chuckle! But, at one time in the Government Service wage system, which is today on a scale from a GS-1 to GS-15, with almost no positions even offered at the GS 1-4 level anymore, was such that a GS-1 made $1,000 PA, a GS-2, $2,000 etc. and a GS-15 made about $15,000 PA!
Thus the wage gap (from the lowest grade to the highest), in spendable dollars was $14,000 PA!
If you have a program which can perform calculations showing what that $1,000 yearly pay would be today, say 40 years later with average raises of 3% compounded! Then compare the wages of the GS-15 ($15,000 PA) at the same raise increments! While I do not have such a program, I will guess that that $14,000 wage gap has grown to something approaching $80,000! IE $20,000 compared to $100,000!
If $20,000 and $100,000 are the correct figures for today and the lowest grade and the highest grades are given exactly equal per centage raises amounting to 5%, then the GS-1 employee (there are none) would get 5% of 20,000 which equals $1,000 per year! But, the GS-15 employee whould get a raise of $5,000! Is this a fair system? So, you see, in just a matter of 10 years the highest paid employee will receive raises that would be more than the salary of the lowest paid!
I don't think it is fair, but most people think of it as fair! But they are (most people) mostly stupid, that is why we use the word "mostly!" laugh!
Thus my case that it has been this insistance one giving every one "equal" per centage raises, which is the cause of much of the division in pay levels found today! Labor unions and everyone else tends to follow raises in much the same fashion! They even want pay raises tied to the rate of inflation! I have contended that the original ratio should have been followed! That is, the ratio of spendable income should have been kept near the original one! Thus, the ratio would be 1 to 15, I presume? And I guess that $14,000 difference could have been kept for ever? But math is not my strong point.
But, there also exists great studies by govenment programs, and private ones, that show, that in real terms, the purchasing power of the average American is much higher today than in 1960!
Who would have thunk it?
Just some realistic facts! Nothing fancy.
Regards,
Ron
Posts:
|
| Directory :
|
anton
Member
|
posted
On
7/12/2007
the purchasing power of the average American is much higher today than in 1960!
Explain this, please, to people who retired in 1960 with what was, then, a comfortable pension.
My father was comptroller of a large public utility. He had a secretary 30 years younger than he was. When she retired, her pension matched my dad's.
And when you get to medical care, forget it. The wheels come off.
The point is that the value of money has sunk from 1853 on. Only system manipulations have created another impression. This is inflation in a nutshell. Your 1960 movie and popcorn is, today, half the price of a pack of cigarettes.
Posts:
|
| Directory :
|
Ron
Member
|
posted
On
7/13/2007
Anton, certainly if you father retired on a fixed income then he and anyone else in that situation would be hurt. My pension, on the other hand, receives yearly adjustments, just like Social Security. Of course hindsight is perfect, but had your father had any other investments, in stocks, bonds, land, etc., then he would have done rather well with them.
It is just the situation! Note, both of my parents worked! But they also saved a good deal of money.
Sorry it did not work out for him!
Ron
Posts:
|
| Directory :
|
anton
Member
|
posted
On
7/13/2007
Actually, he was/is financially astute,did save and invest all his life, and is not what you'd call "hurting." But a lot of what he had was in corporate bonds . . .
The point remains, I think. A dollar in 1913 is worth, today, a penny.
The net effect of this is --probably as foreseen (and intended) -- to continually erode everyone and everything not connected to money creation itself. I.e., the rich grow richer and more powerful, and the bourgeois steadily lose ground.
Any programme to improve the world which does not deal directly and effectively with this is, in my humble opinion, a daydream.
Politically, the establishment which uses government (continually expanding it's reach into our lives, I'm sure you have noticed) to create and concentrate wealth in its own hands will ALWAYS control the outcome of "the political process." You saw this in the replacement of a Republican majority with a Democratic one in the last election. Net result ? ZERO. Business as usual, operating from behind the facade through the puppets-in-place.
The only American in our lifetime who ever posed a serious threat to this regime was George Wallace. According to his campaign manager, the raw (un-cooked) poll figures showed him winning the election in a landslide. Which would have destroyed the two-party, one hand washes the other system of false "choices." Today, should Ron Paul somehow manage to overcome the complete media relegation of him to outer darkness, there will undoubtedly be a "deranged gunman" in his future as well.
You MUST start with control of money creation. If you don't, they control youir every move.
Posts:
|
| Directory :
|
Ron
Member
|
posted
On
7/14/2007
Deleted by the author! Not worth the space!
Ron
Posts:
|
| Directory :
|
Ron
Member
|
posted
On
7/13/2007
Gee, it is Friday the thirteenth, isn't it!
Ron
Posts:
|
| Directory :
|
|
