TRUMP 2016

LonelyI lol everytime. I've never had many interactions with you but I definetly fall more right. But you're so easy to upset. Maybe that's why you ran out of the country and hide behind the anonymity of the interwebz.

You're about as far to the "right" as our friend Masshole.

Sometimes coherent thoughts at 6am are hard to come by.

Still, I'm waiting for a coherent argument with factually backed sources that aren't fake news.
Doubt that will happen.

.MASSHOLE.And he continues to think his sources are accurate despite having several debunked. Hm.

He says toppling Gaddafi (the correct spelling) was a mistake, yet fails to offer what alternatives there were. Are human rights violations (in this case murder of protesters) to go unchecked? Is killing innocent civilians acceptable now? How about allegedly hiring foreign mercenaries to do what the military refused to do?


Anyone who saw his statements knew he was somewhat unhinged talking about conspiracies involving drugs in milk, coffee, and other liquids, then colonialist plot conspiracy, and then finally talking about cleansing the protesters house by house.

I can see why he would appeal to everyone's favorite alt-right member. He believes that Gaddafi is a strong leader and that any dissident should be shut up or killed.

No one denies the situation in Libya is bad but the question remains what were the alternatives?

Let Libya turn into a Syria, or to attempt to prevent (in this case unsuccessfully) that from happening?

Armed jihadists are protesters now? Talk about warped.

The solution? Light those fuckers up. I know it would've broken your poor heart though.

Melania Trump's ass smells like cow shit

CampeadorYou're about as far to the "right" as our friend Masshole.

Okay then, the burden of proof falls on you so please prove and give evidence of my leftism.

.MASSHOLE.I've got a paper I wrote about 3 years ago now on the Gold Standard I can send you later. It's got some good sources you can read as well as insight on its history and why it ultimately didn't work.

Sure, that would be awesome! My only other question is in regards to the federal reserve. If the treasury issues debt (government bonds) and if the federal reserve prints money and buys that debt (i.e., quantitative easing). The federal reserve is in the most basic sentience creating money from nothing, correct? So, wouldn't the US government then have to pay back the debt with tax receipts, the federal reserve earns interest, which it then pays back to the government.

So, because the government receives money at interest from the privatized banking cartel it really will never have to pay back the debt owned to the fed. Would it not just need to grow the economy on pace with the amount of debt? I mean that seems a little backwards, right? As to “juice up” the economy, a drastic cut in the value of the US dollar would need to suffice. I think to continue this trend and money practice and to believe that it is 100% stable is merely a pipe dream that is sure to burst. Debasing the currency is reaching its end. Inflation of the cumulative curve of supply is reaching the top of its curtailment. Is there a possibility that the dollar will collapse? The Fed would again, raise interest rates and stock the withdraw of capital. Or you could devalue the dollar against gold. I don't know.

And as for the CPI purchasing power of the dollar, there's been a significant downward trend since 1913 after the implementation of the federal reserve and before it as well. Your chart does not illustrate the trend in it's entirety nor does it depict the historical trends before the 1960's. Still, you're right in saying that nobody strictly holds cash from 1913.

So, devaluation means loss of purchasing power and this rings true if you look at the historical trends. Currency fluctuations are another subject but I think the majority care about how much they can actually buy with their dollars.

How can any fiat currency compete with hard asset backed currencies? A fiat currency will at some point return to a value of zero. Inflation is not natural at this rate but economists will have you believe that it's the only option and that fractional reserve banking is the only way. Retried persons and there savings are basically eaten by inflation.

And is not the dollar the US’s largest export? That's why I think when other countries try to compete with the US economic hegemony, there's almost always blow back. Reserve currency value does not last forever and when the dollar is worth less exports become affordable. Nonetheless, the majority of the middle class gets screwed and the well off gets da gravy.

As for GADDAFI, have you read 'The Green Book'? It's pretty interesting.

https://www.amazon.com/Gaddafis-Green-Book-Muammar-al-Gaddafi/dp/1541241312/ref=pd_sbs_14_1?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=SEJGD5THZ6PQ8W3VGER8

We've been told that Gaddafi and his army killed thousands of peaceful protestors, of course I'm willing to believe it but I've found no conclusive evidence of this. I know that many of the rebels, some with extremist ideologies were armed. The British Government even admitted to propping up and arming his opposition. Many of the rebels also ethnically cleansed black Libyan Christians, parading the corpses around in the streets. There are many videos of this. I would think our government would kill these people if they did this here at home. So, obviously the only answer is more bombing by the "good guys?" right? Bomb it, pave it over.

And I do not know the validity of this but did Libya have a Rothschild/IMF-controlled central bank before the crisis?

http://www.imf.org/external/country/LBY/index.htm

http://www.imf.org/external/np/ms/2009/060109a.htm

http://www.imf.org/external/pp/longres.aspx?id=5028

This is from a new Europe article, "Over the last couple of years (2007-2009), the Libyan leader has held landmark meetings with Nicolas Sarkozy, Gordon Brown, Silvio Berlusconi, Condoleezza Rice and Vladimir Putin all of whom vowed to strengthen cooperation with Tripoli in several projects, and especially in oil and gas development. That is exactly why the West was caught by surprise when Gaddafi... was quoted by the press as saying he is considering nationalizing operations of international oil companies..."

This is also interesting and definitely worth considering, explains why the French got involved, although it is unsubstantiated and I can not find any other information on it; https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/mar/16/sarkozy-election-campaign-libya-claim

I think Gaddafi had become less malleable, sanctions were imposed and jackals came in. Keep in mind that a lot of the civilian deaths in Libya were due in part to US air strikes. We then used the 'Gaddafi has chemical weapons and will use them on his own civilians' as an excuse for involvement. Kind of like the red line fiasco in Syria, which was a lie. Then the US tries to exempt mercenaries from war crimes.

Here's a timeline of the events; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13755445

Notice how after rebels assassinated Gaddafi, Libya went to shit. A terrorist hotbed and a failed state.

Rebels gunning down unarmed loyalists; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=of2GEELAT38

We treat Gaddafi like he is some sort of evil supervillian, we invade and destroy his country, all while our own leaders act with the same disregard for human life.

Under Gaddafi the standards of living improved significantly. It went from being the poorest country in Africa to the richest. Modernization, wide scale development projects; oil revenue was most likely the reason for the increased living standards. Social status of women had improved greatly, literacy rate as well. Subsidization including free services like health, education, housing and basic food and water needs, were considered basic necessities. The Great Man Made river gave people access to safe water. A decently high life expectancy, especially for a country in Africa. Yes, gaddafi was a dictator but I do not think he is as bad as the US likes to claim.

fuckmekevinSure, that would be awesome! My only other question is in regards to the federal reserve. If the treasury issues debt (government bonds) and if the federal reserve prints money and buys that debt (i.e., quantitative easing). The federal reserve is in the most basic sentience creating money from nothing, correct? So, wouldn't the US government then have to pay back the debt with tax receipts, the federal reserve earns interest, which it then pays back to the government.

So, because the government receives money at interest from the privatized banking cartel it really will never have to pay back the debt owned to the fed. Would it not just need to grow the economy on pace with the amount of debt? I mean that seems a little backwards, right? As to “juice up” the economy, a drastic cut in the value of the US dollar would need to suffice. I think to continue this trend and money practice and to believe that it is 100% stable is merely a pipe dream that is sure to burst. Debasing the currency is reaching its end. Inflation of the cumulative curve of supply is reaching the top of its curtailment. Is there a possibility that the dollar will collapse? The Fed would again, raise interest rates and stock the withdraw of capital. Or you could devalue the dollar against gold. I don't know.

And as for the CPI purchasing power of the dollar, there's been a significant downward trend since 1913 after the implementation of the federal reserve and before it as well. Your chart does not illustrate the trend in it's entirety nor does it depict the historical trends before the 1960's. Still, you're right in saying that nobody strictly holds cash from 1913.

So, devaluation means loss of purchasing power and this rings true if you look at the historical trends. Currency fluctuations are another subject but I think the majority care about how much they can actually buy with their dollars.

How can any fiat currency compete with hard asset backed currencies? A fiat currency will at some point return to a value of zero. Inflation is not natural at this rate but economists will have you believe that it's the only option and that fractional reserve banking is the only way. Retried persons and there savings are basically eaten by inflation.

And is not the dollar the US’s largest export? That's why I think when other countries try to compete with the US economic hegemony, there's almost always blow back. Reserve currency value does not last forever and when the dollar is worth less exports become affordable. Nonetheless, the majority of the middle class gets screwed and the well off gets da gravy.

As for GADDAFI, have you read 'The Green Book'? It's pretty interesting.

https://www.amazon.com/Gaddafis-Green-Book-Muammar-al-Gaddafi/dp/1541241312/ref=pd_sbs_14_1?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=SEJGD5THZ6PQ8W3VGER8

We've been told that Gaddafi and his army killed thousands of peaceful protestors, of course I'm willing to believe it but I've found no conclusive evidence of this. I know that many of the rebels, some with extremist ideologies were armed. The British Government even admitted to propping up and arming his opposition. Many of the rebels also ethnically cleansed black Libyan Christians, parading the corpses around in the streets. There are many videos of this. I would think our government would kill these people if they did this here at home. So, obviously the only answer is more bombing by the "good guys?" right? Bomb it, pave it over.

And I do not know the validity of this but did Libya have a Rothschild/IMF-controlled central bank before the crisis?

http://www.imf.org/external/country/LBY/index.htm

http://www.imf.org/external/np/ms/2009/060109a.htm

http://www.imf.org/external/pp/longres.aspx?id=5028

This is from a new Europe article, "Over the last couple of years (2007-2009), the Libyan leader has held landmark meetings with Nicolas Sarkozy, Gordon Brown, Silvio Berlusconi, Condoleezza Rice and Vladimir Putin all of whom vowed to strengthen cooperation with Tripoli in several projects, and especially in oil and gas development. That is exactly why the West was caught by surprise when Gaddafi... was quoted by the press as saying he is considering nationalizing operations of international oil companies..."

This is also interesting and definitely worth considering, explains why the French got involved, although it is unsubstantiated and I can not find any other information on it; https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/mar/16/sarkozy-election-campaign-libya-claim

I think Gaddafi had become less malleable, sanctions were imposed and jackals came in. Keep in mind that a lot of the civilian deaths in Libya were due in part to US air strikes. We then used the 'Gaddafi has chemical weapons and will use them on his own civilians' as an excuse for involvement. Kind of like the red line fiasco in Syria, which was a lie. Then the US tries to exempt mercenaries from war crimes.

Here's a timeline of the events; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13755445

Notice how after rebels assassinated Gaddafi, Libya went to shit. A terrorist hotbed and a failed state.

Rebels gunning down unarmed loyalists; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=of2GEELAT38

We treat Gaddafi like he is some sort of evil supervillian, we invade and destroy his country, all while our own leaders act with the same disregard for human life.

Under Gaddafi the standards of living improved significantly. It went from being the poorest country in Africa to the richest. Modernization, wide scale development projects; oil revenue was most likely the reason for the increased living standards. Social status of women had improved greatly, literacy rate as well. Subsidization including free services like health, education, housing and basic food and water needs, were considered basic necessities. The Great Man Made river gave people access to safe water. A decently high life expectancy, especially for a country in Africa. Yes, gaddafi was a dictator but I do not think he is as bad as the US likes to claim.

Yeah, Gaddafi, good guy eh: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103

californiagrownYeah, Gaddafi, good guy eh: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103

He was a great guy according to Mandela...

californiagrownYeah, Gaddafi, good guy eh: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103

No one is saying any of these dictators are good people. Only that they were far preferable to what has come after.

Libya will be a failed state for decades (if not longer), an anarchic wasteland, and a highway for illegal migrants from Africa and the Middle East to Europe.

But as long as a few globalist world leaders can pat themselves on the back for standing up for the "human rights" of a few jihadists, no worries right?

CampeadorI wonder how all those college administrators are enjoying all those hundreds of thousands of dollars that they stole from your parents. They've probably taken some nice vacations.

Thanks Masshole!

californiagrownYeah, Gaddafi, good guy eh: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103

And when did I ever say Gaddafi was a good guy? Stop putting words in my mouth, he has a history of denouncing dissenters and is markedly anti-imperialist. The US played the cards for Gadaffi the entire time this game was going on... Wikipedia does not count as a legitimate source anymore, it's lazy.

When your sole witness was paid millions of dollars for his testimony then that in and of itself is a conflict of interest. The case against Libya has my doubts and many others who work for the International Court of Justice. It's again not that black and white. Still, doesn't justify what NATO and the US did back in 2011.

Gods_FatherHe was a great guy according to Mandela...

"My delegation and I are overjoyed with the invitation from the Brother Guide [Muammar Gaddafi], to visit the Great Popular and Socialist Arab Libyan Jamahiriya. I have been waiting impatiently ever since we received the invitation. I would like to remind you that the first time I came here, in 1962, the country was in a very different state of affairs. One could not but be struck by the sights of poverty from the moment of arrival, with all of its usual corollaries: hunger, illness, lack of housing and of health-care facilities, etc. Anger and revolt could be read in those days on the faces of everyone.

Since then, things have changed considerably. During our stay in prison, we read and heard a great deal about the changes which have come about in this country and about blossoming of the economy which has been experienced here. There is prosperity and progress everywhere here today which we were able to see even before the airplane touched ground. It is thus with great pleasure that we have come on a visit in the Jamahiriya, impatient to meet our brother, the Guide Gaddafi."

When Mandela was taken to the ruins of Gaddafi's compound in Tripoli, which was bombed by the Reagan administration in 1986 in an attempt to murder the entire Gaddafi family, he said:

"No country can claim to be the policeman of the world and no state can dictate to another what it should do. Those that yesterday were friends of our enemies have the gall today to tell me not to visit my brother Gaddafi. They are advising us to be ungrateful and forget our friends of the past."

fuckmekevinSure, that would be awesome! My only other question is in regards to the federal reserve. If the treasury issues debt (government bonds) and if the federal reserve prints money and buys that debt (i.e., quantitative easing). The federal reserve is in the most basic sentience creating money from nothing, correct? So, wouldn't the US government then have to pay back the debt with tax receipts, the federal reserve earns interest, which it then pays back to the government.

So, because the government receives money at interest from the privatized banking cartel it really will never have to pay back the debt owned to the fed. Would it not just need to grow the economy on pace with the amount of debt? I mean that seems a little backwards, right? As to “juice up” the economy, a drastic cut in the value of the US dollar would need to suffice. I think to continue this trend and money practice and to believe that it is 100% stable is merely a pipe dream that is sure to burst. Debasing the currency is reaching its end. Inflation of the cumulative curve of supply is reaching the top of its curtailment. Is there a possibility that the dollar will collapse? The Fed would again, raise interest rates and stock the withdraw of capital. Or you could devalue the dollar against gold. I don't know.

And as for the CPI purchasing power of the dollar, there's been a significant downward trend since 1913 after the implementation of the federal reserve and before it as well. Your chart does not illustrate the trend in it's entirety nor does it depict the historical trends before the 1960's. Still, you're right in saying that nobody strictly holds cash from 1913.

So, devaluation means loss of purchasing power and this rings true if you look at the historical trends. Currency fluctuations are another subject but I think the majority care about how much they can actually buy with their dollars.

How can any fiat currency compete with hard asset backed currencies? A fiat currency will at some point return to a value of zero. Inflation is not natural at this rate but economists will have you believe that it's the only option and that fractional reserve banking is the only way. Retried persons and there savings are basically eaten by inflation.

And is not the dollar the US’s largest export? That's why I think when other countries try to compete with the US economic hegemony, there's almost always blow back. Reserve currency value does not last forever and when the dollar is worth less exports become affordable. Nonetheless, the majority of the middle class gets screwed and the well off gets da gravy.

As for GADDAFI, have you read 'The Green Book'? It's pretty interesting.

https://www.amazon.com/Gaddafis-Green-Book-Muammar-al-Gaddafi/dp/1541241312/ref=pd_sbs_14_1?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=SEJGD5THZ6PQ8W3VGER8

We've been told that Gaddafi and his army killed thousands of peaceful protestors, of course I'm willing to believe it but I've found no conclusive evidence of this. I know that many of the rebels, some with extremist ideologies were armed. The British Government even admitted to propping up and arming his opposition. Many of the rebels also ethnically cleansed black Libyan Christians, parading the corpses around in the streets. There are many videos of this. I would think our government would kill these people if they did this here at home. So, obviously the only answer is more bombing by the "good guys?" right? Bomb it, pave it over.

And I do not know the validity of this but did Libya have a Rothschild/IMF-controlled central bank before the crisis?

http://www.imf.org/external/country/LBY/index.htm

http://www.imf.org/external/np/ms/2009/060109a.htm

http://www.imf.org/external/pp/longres.aspx?id=5028

This is from a new Europe article, "Over the last couple of years (2007-2009), the Libyan leader has held landmark meetings with Nicolas Sarkozy, Gordon Brown, Silvio Berlusconi, Condoleezza Rice and Vladimir Putin all of whom vowed to strengthen cooperation with Tripoli in several projects, and especially in oil and gas development. That is exactly why the West was caught by surprise when Gaddafi... was quoted by the press as saying he is considering nationalizing operations of international oil companies..."

This is also interesting and definitely worth considering, explains why the French got involved, although it is unsubstantiated and I can not find any other information on it; https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/mar/16/sarkozy-election-campaign-libya-claim

I think Gaddafi had become less malleable, sanctions were imposed and jackals came in. Keep in mind that a lot of the civilian deaths in Libya were due in part to US air strikes. We then used the 'Gaddafi has chemical weapons and will use them on his own civilians' as an excuse for involvement. Kind of like the red line fiasco in Syria, which was a lie. Then the US tries to exempt mercenaries from war crimes.

Here's a timeline of the events; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13755445

Notice how after rebels assassinated Gaddafi, Libya went to shit. A terrorist hotbed and a failed state.

Rebels gunning down unarmed loyalists; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=of2GEELAT38

We treat Gaddafi like he is some sort of evil supervillian, we invade and destroy his country, all while our own leaders act with the same disregard for human life.

Under Gaddafi the standards of living improved significantly. It went from being the poorest country in Africa to the richest. Modernization, wide scale development projects; oil revenue was most likely the reason for the increased living standards. Social status of women had improved greatly, literacy rate as well. Subsidization including free services like health, education, housing and basic food and water needs, were considered basic necessities. The Great Man Made river gave people access to safe water. A decently high life expectancy, especially for a country in Africa. Yes, gaddafi was a dictator but I do not think he is as bad as the US likes to claim.

It's on a hard drive I have at home, I'll send you a PDF link Monday night. It's a really interesting topic.

Your understanding of the downfalls of a central bank and fiat money is 100% correct. The US government effectively does not owe anything to the Fed (which is quasi-private, not fully). However, it does owe money to foreign countries which it does pay interest to. If the government can't pay back this payment and interest (which Donald has actually stated could happen), it would crush the dollar (and international economy). So, it is in the best interest for all involved to figure out terms in which it can keep this relationship going.

The dollar is backed by the fact that almost all who buy US bonds know that the US government will pay it's debts. It's why China would never hold it's US bonds over the government's head. It would collapse the entire global system. It is why interest rates are such a big deal.

It is why, IMO, the government controlling the Fed like Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and Sanders have all advocated for, is an awful idea. The people running it need to understand a lot of economics, both theory and history, to be able to plot interest rate movements.


The dollar can't compete with hard-backed assets because defaulting would ultimately see the creditor receive nothing in return. But money goes beyond that, it requires the ability to monitor money supply as a means to combat economic crisis. The rigidity of the gold supply or an asset-backed commodity leaves governments with very little flexibility to adjust to any sort of shock to the system. You'll see a lot of pieces on why the gold standard hindered countries' ability to rebound from the Great Depression. While the devaluation shock SUCKED, it allowed for a faster rebound.

US debt is our greatest export, so by proxy yes the dollar is up there. But it is a necessity for monetary supply, governmental funding, etc.

A weak dollar is great for exports, a strong dollar is great for imports. Simple, so you have it right.

In regards to Gaddafi killing protesters, I can't put a figure on the amount, but there are lots and lots of reports out there confirming that at least 100+ have died. Again, the pure number of reports on this has me believe civilians were targeted.

I don't believe the IMF controls Libya's central bank, I don't think they qualify for an IMF loan. I'd have to double check, but their economy is/was too strong for IMF input. The IMF may study the economy, but they don't have an active role in it.

Certainly an interesting theory about the meetings and the donations to Sarkozy's campaign, but as you said, unsubstantiated. I'd guess if there was something there, the French government would investigate (if it was against the law).

Oh definitely, Gaddafi became less cooperative as more sanctions were imposed. I'm not going to disagree with the end result, it's impossible. Libya has gone to shit. But as I stated before, what were the alternatives? Let Libya devolve into a civil war like Syria, or attempt to turn it into something more stable?

Gaddafi certainly was a good leader, there is no denying that when looking at the country pre-civil war. But I think the people were ready for change and improvements but were unable to achieve it because he was unwilling to give it up. That was the moment he went from a great leader to a dictator. There certainly were issues with his reign pre-civil war as well.

To me that's a little scary that US debt is our greatest export and that it is a necessity for monetary supply, governmental funding, etc.

Would not auditing and ending the federal reserve eradicate the interest owed? Of course, auditing and ending the fed would most likely cause a global financial collapse. I really just don't like how we the people and a minority of congressmen allowed a monopoly on the money supply. Throughout history, presidents and intellectuals warned the people about this.

Yeah, but I doubt that the opposition would have caused full blown civil war if it weren't for the funding and arming of mercenaries and extremists. If NATO and it's allies ceased to arm the opposition, I believe Gaddafi would have likely jailed his opposition, which was a minority compared to his loyalists and people who wanted a secular place to live and so he would have likely maintained his reign. If not for the sanctions the living conditions would have most likely improved from there.

I think the Arab spring was ripe for foreign superpowers to back the opposition in order to push geopolitical agendas. I'm also not denying that the Arab Spring was mostly grassroot demonstrations throughout the middle east and North Africa.

"Former French interior minister Claude Gueant was taken into custody on Friday in connection with a probe into the alleged financing by Moamer Kadhafi's Libya of Nicolas Sarkozy's 2007 presidential election campaign"

The court system is looking into this.

And apparently Sarkozy did receive money from Gaddafi, a hefty amount.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/nicolas-sarkozy-did-take-50-million-of-muammar-gaddafis-cash-french-judge-is-told-8435872.html

"One of Gaddafi's sons, Saadi, said Libya would descend into civil war if his father stepped down, Al Arabiya television reported, adding that Libya would turn into a new Somalia and that the country's tribes would fight each other."

"In an interview with France 24 television, Gaddafi said Libya was an important partner for the West in containing al Qaeda and illegal migrants trying to reach Europe."

"Everything Gaddafi and his son said would happen, happened. The obviously understood the ramifications of all this."

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-libya-protests-idUSTRE71G0A620110308

Interesting, http://www.haaretz.com/sharon-says-u-s-should-also-disarm-iran-libya-and-syria-1.18707

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8375043/Libya-Gaddafi-will-prevail-says-Barack-Obamas-intelligence-chief.html

Also, who has all of Gaddafi's gold now? I'm generally curious.

fuckmekevinTo me that's a little scary that US debt is our greatest export and that it is a necessity for monetary supply, governmental funding, etc.

Would not auditing and ending the federal reserve eradicate the interest owed? Of course, auditing and ending the fed would most likely cause a global financial collapse. I really just don't like how we the people and a minority of congressmen allowed a monopoly on the money supply. Throughout history, presidents and intellectuals warned the people about this.

It's not that scary when you consider the fact it is in everyone's best interest to make sure we never default. The world is so interconnected that any sort of collapse by the US brings down the entire system.

Auditing would do nothing to the Fed, it is already audited every year.

I don't get the "audit the Fed" movement since it would bring political pressure into the Fed system which is a horrendous idea. Do you really want short term politicians impacting an institution that is focused on the long term for political reasons? Additionally, how many people would actually comprehend the logic behind certain Fed actions? I'm guessing very, very few.

How did we allow it? We allowed it because to have a functional and flexible economy you need a combination of monetary and fiscal policy. Only having one would not suffice in any sort of economic crisis nor would it allow for flexibility as economic conditions change. An asset-backed monetary supply wouldn't fix these issues either since, assuming it would be backed with a rare/important asset, it would be again constricted by the scarcity of the asset backing it.

And in regards to Libya's gold, I have no idea. I've read reports saying it was stolen, it is still there, and that Gaddafi has hidden it. Some sites that show gold reserves show it sitting at 116 tonnes so, again, I have zero idea.

.MASSHOLE.It's not that scary when you consider the fact it is in everyone's best interest to make sure we never default. The world is so interconnected that any sort of collapse by the US brings down the entire system.

Auditing would do nothing to the Fed, it is already audited every year.

I don't get the "audit the Fed" movement since it would bring political pressure into the Fed system which is a horrendous idea. Do you really want short term politicians impacting an institution that is focused on the long term for political reasons? Additionally, how many people would actually comprehend the logic behind certain Fed actions? I'm guessing very, very few.

How did we allow it? We allowed it because to have a functional and flexible economy you need a combination of monetary and fiscal policy. Only having one would not suffice in any sort of economic crisis nor would it allow for flexibility as economic conditions change. An asset-backed monetary supply wouldn't fix these issues either since, assuming it would be backed with a rare/important asset, it would be again constricted by the scarcity of the asset backing it.

And in regards to Libya's gold, I have no idea. I've read reports saying it was stolen, it is still there, and that Gaddafi has hidden it. Some sites that show gold reserves show it sitting at 116 tonnes so, again, I have zero idea.

So to have a functional and flexible economy why do we consider fractional reserve banking to be the only viable option? Are there alternatives?

There's little oversight and transparency when it comes to privatizing the money supply but when it comes to monetary policy, theory is heaps different than reality. Our paper money is not that tangible, correct? It doesn't really hold any intrinsic value, whereas gold, silver and other precious metals do; I should say paper money backed by gold, which has a stable value and price. And when it comes to fractional reserve banking someone will always get the end of the stick. Bankruptcy and recessions are merely a product of this monetary system. An arbitrary mess when it comes to fractional reserve banking, too many ways to manipulate policy and in doing so they have a great amount of power to change the socioeconomic system.

Do you not agree that fractional reserve banking isn't 100% stable and that fiat currency always collapses in on itself. It's just a matter of when. We already have a derivative bubble just waiting to be popped. And Trump and his advisors have assigned some greedy bastards already pushing to deregulate the financial markets for their own benefit.

We need a better system to regulate currency; a currency that has intrinsic value of which can not be easily manipulated and/or privatized by a single entity.

Government was entrusted to protect our wealth and security but that doesn't seem to be the case in the least. Maybe, the gold standard didn't work as well as people thought it would because government partly wants to gain as much wealth as possible. You talk about how a gold standard backing a currency will never work, why? Did the gold standard fail us or did our government fail the gold standard?

When have we ever heard of people clinging to the edge of a cliff in an extreme inflationary climate with shopping bags of gold and silver. You hear this with paper money, which at the end of a hyperinflation collapse is worth less to nothing. I truly believe the next collapse will bring the whole thing down and their will have to be a complete overhaul and reformation of monetary policy.

fuckmekevinSo to have a functional and flexible economy why do we consider fractional reserve banking to be the only viable option? Are there alternatives?

There's little oversight and transparency when it comes to privatizing the money supply but when it comes to monetary policy, theory is heaps different than reality. Our paper money is not that tangible, correct? It doesn't really hold any intrinsic value, whereas gold, silver and other precious metals do; I should say paper money backed by gold, which has a stable value and price. And when it comes to fractional reserve banking someone will always get the end of the stick. Bankruptcy and recessions are merely a product of this monetary system. An arbitrary mess when it comes to fractional reserve banking, too many ways to manipulate policy and in doing so they have a great amount of power to change the socioeconomic system.

Do you not agree that fractional reserve banking isn't 100% stable and that fiat currency always collapses in on itself. It's just a matter of when. We already have a derivative bubble just waiting to be popped. And Trump and his advisors have assigned some greedy bastards already pushing to deregulate the financial markets for their own benefit.

We need a better system to regulate currency; a currency that has intrinsic value of which can not be easily manipulated and/or privatized by a single entity.

Government was entrusted to protect our wealth and security but that doesn't seem to be the case in the least. Maybe, the gold standard didn't work as well as people thought it would because government partly wants to gain as much wealth as possible. You talk about how a gold standard backing a currency will never work, why? Did the gold standard fail us or did our government fail the gold standard?

When have we ever heard of people clinging to the edge of a cliff in an extreme inflationary climate with shopping bags of gold and silver. You hear this with paper money, which at the end of a hyperinflation collapse is worth less to nothing. I truly believe the next collapse will bring the whole thing down and their will have to be a complete overhaul and reformation of monetary policy.

You can have functional, or you can have flexible, but fractional reserve banking is the only one that really offers both. Functional would be the gold standard or any commodity-backed currency, but it isn't flexible. Flexible would be a free banking system, but that isn't functional (in this day and age). Even Hayek, the Austrian school champion, eventually agreed a central banking system was unavoidable. History will show both of these to hold true.

You had the Gold Standard for a commodity-backed system, one being a pure precious metal system the other being a gold-backed paper system, and almost every economist will argue that the reason the US, England, and other countries rebounded so quickly compared to Italy or France was due to the suspension of this standard.

For free banking you can look at Scotland or the US. The Scottish had a successful system in place for much of the 18th and early 19th century, but it ended up failing for two reasons; economies of scale and too much competition. There is not much actual data on the healthiness" of Scottish banks during this period, but one could see that they, like the BoE, had to suspend specie-flow during certain periods which indicates that their commodity-backed currencies were not as stable as one would believe. But, one could see the number of banks that entered the industry (lots) and those that succeeded by the end of it that there was a lot of competition but ultimately economies of scales paid off. The biggest banks were able to spread their network and eventually take over markets until you were left with just a few larger banks. This ultimately means that the benefits of free-banking, or the ability to choose your currency based on the healthiness of the banks, was limited. The US was a shit show. You had fraud, state-chartered banks, little to no regulation which hurt local economies, and almost all ended up failing.

Free banking at face value sounds great. You have private banks that function off their trustworthiness and have the ability to choose which currency you will use. But it has so many pitfalls. You have to worry about fraud, no deposit insurance, inability to exchange currencies with ease, etc.

There is a lot of good literature out there on Free Banking. Selgin, White, Dowd, even Hayek are all good options. I suggest you read some of the pro-free banking work and some of the work that rails against its pitfalls. It's really fascinating. What could potentially lead to a quasi-free banking system would be something bitcoin-esque. But that too has its issues.

Bankruptcy and recessions are not limited to fractional reserve banking. They may be more common, but they are not limited it to it. You just have to look at the history of the US to see how many recessions or depressions we've had. It isn't the largest time span, but there were a lot pre-fractional reserve banking.

No currency system is 100% stable, it just isn't possible. The question one needs to ask themselves is what do they prefer? Do they prefer free banking which means their bank could collapse any day if mismanaged and leave their currency worthless? Or do they prefer a commodity-backed currency which could potentially prove to be a hinderance given a time of economic crisis but will always hold some sort of tangible value? Or, finally, do they prefer a currency that is backed by a government and, as you said, intrinsically worthless but may provide more flexibility and functionality?

There is no holy-grail currency system. It isn't possible. You'll see some economists suggest a basket of goods that can back a currency (like a combination of oil, gold, precious metals, etc.) but what commodity is rare enough that is not controlled by a single entity yet retains value?

The gold standard failed us because the system was and is broken. First, people will always see gold as a speculative asset. Gold will always be worth SOMETHING to someone. If a crisis, be it economic or militaristic, is feared then a country will start to hoard gold because it has value. Additionally, there is the potential for domestic politics to play a role in it as well. Secondly, the suspension of this system was and always will be possible. You saw many countries suspend their gold standard specie-flows during WWI because they were at war. You have also seen countries suspend gold redemption because their domestic economic situation meant that their tax revenues were too low.

The current system as it stands is quite capable of handling any major crisis. The only thing that could destroy the fractional reserve system would have to be a global, catastrophic event. If that happens, there will be bigger concerns.

We will never return to a precious-metal coin system. That is the only type of currency that would be able to retain value through an event like that. Even a commodity-backed paper system would fall pray to it as every government would suspend convertibility in event of a global disaster and all one would be left with would be paper. Sure, that paper may hold "value", but if you can't redeem it what good does it do? If your country's reserves are too low, stuck in transit, or frankly IOUs (like they often were given the difficulty and costs of trans-continental travel) then you are shit out of luck until the crisis is over.

.MASSHOLE.It's not that scary when you consider the fact it is in everyone's best interest to make sure we never default. The world is so interconnected that any sort of collapse by the US brings down the entire system.

Auditing would do nothing to the Fed, it is already audited every year.

I don't get the "audit the Fed" movement since it would bring political pressure into the Fed system which is a horrendous idea. Do you really want short term politicians impacting an institution that is focused on the long term for political reasons? Additionally, how many people would actually comprehend the logic behind certain Fed actions? I'm guessing very, very few.

How did we allow it? We allowed it because to have a functional and flexible economy you need a combination of monetary and fiscal policy. Only having one would not suffice in any sort of economic crisis nor would it allow for flexibility as economic conditions change. An asset-backed monetary supply wouldn't fix these issues either since, assuming it would be backed with a rare/important asset, it would be again constricted by the scarcity of the asset backing it.

And in regards to Libya's gold, I have no idea. I've read reports saying it was stolen, it is still there, and that Gaddafi has hidden it. Some sites that show gold reserves show it sitting at 116 tonnes so, again, I have zero idea.

The only thing a centralized banking system does is create debt. Not to mention our monies value is only dependent on the amount in circulation.

Wasn't is Iceland who had a privatized banking system with decent regulation that led to them having a strong (but small) economy?

Charlie_KellyThe only thing a centralized banking system does is create debt. Not to mention our monies value is only dependent on the amount in circulation.

Wasn't is Iceland who had a privatized banking system with decent regulation that led to them having a strong (but small) economy?

Sort of. I'm about to go skiing but I'll expand on what else they do later.

No country has a privatized banking system that lacks a central bank. Every country (that I can think of) has a central bank that is quasi-independent of governmental influence. Iceland does however have stricter regulations for private commercial banks.

Anyone see that dumb bitch Melania try to read the Lord's Prayer?

how fucking stupid is this woman that she cant recite a couple of lines without looking at a teleprompter every 5 seconds?

like this woman is a complete bone head

i wouldn't fuck her even with someone elses dick

Also, what ever happened to separating church from state? I am a Catholic and i find this shit super offensive


https://www.newschoolers.com/videos/watch/859109/Melania-Trump-Recites-The-Lord--39-s-Prayer

Charlie_KellyThe only thing a centralized banking system does is create debt. Not to mention our monies value is only dependent on the amount in circulation.

Wasn't is Iceland who had a privatized banking system with decent regulation that led to them having a strong (but small) economy?

Well to put it simply, I'm assuming you know the basis of Federal Reserve actions here, the Federal Reserve focuses on two things, monetary policy (which involves debt purchases and sales, interests rates, and economic forecasts), and regulatory policy (basically telling banks what they can and cannot do, think Dodd-Frank).

Sure, the former is definitely more important, but the latter is key for preventing bank runs which can devastate an economy as well as working with Congress to develop rules surrounding consumer credit.

This all goes without mentioning the role of Lender of Last Resort, which as the last Financial Crisis showed, is really important.

.MASSHOLE.Well to put it simply, I'm assuming you know the basis of Federal Reserve actions here, the Federal Reserve focuses on two things, monetary policy (which involves debt purchases and sales, interests rates, and economic forecasts), and regulatory policy (basically telling banks what they can and cannot do, think Dodd-Frank).

Sure, the former is definitely more important, but the latter is key for preventing bank runs which can devastate an economy as well as working with Congress to develop rules surrounding consumer credit.

This all goes without mentioning the role of Lender of Last Resort, which as the last Financial Crisis showed, is really important.

Wasn't the federal reserve partly to blame for the great depression. There were also some well written historical novels regarding the Rothschild banking system lying in order to take control of the UK equity market. I really do not think these families nor the ones that control the federal reserve have us, the common people in mind. The very system itself creates wealth inequality. I mean if you look, six bank companies have assets equaling more than 60 percent of U.S. GDP. I should also note that the better the GDP, the more wealth inequality and this can be statistically verified. Public health also decreases for the majority.

Iceland did it best, when it threw the rotten in jail. It would not stand for their greediness back in 2008, which almost led to a world wide financial collapse. In the US no high ranking banker went to jail, many were promoted, most were given heavy bonuses.

fuckmekevinWasn't the federal reserve partly to blame for the great depression. There were also some well written historical novels regarding the Rothschild banking system lying in order to take control of the UK equity market. I really do not think these families nor the ones that control the federal reserve have us, the common people in mind. The very system itself creates wealth inequality. I mean if you look, six bank companies have assets equaling more than 60 percent of U.S. GDP. I should also note that the better the GDP, the more wealth inequality and this can be statistically verified. Public health also decreases for the majority.

Iceland did it best, when it threw the rotten in jail. It would not stand for their greediness back in 2008, which almost led to a world wide financial collapse. In the US no high ranking banker went to jail, many were promoted, most were given heavy bonuses.

Partly? Sure, but it wasn't by it's fundamental actions but rather by the Board's policy decisions. But you also had a ton of factors outside of the Fed's control that contributed, including global economic sentiment, gold hoarding, etc. Some argue that the presence of the Fed post-collapse actually helped speed up the recovery.

Arguing whether or not the Fed has the people's best interests in mind is a fruitless endeavor.There are and will be points that can prove or disprove this statement until the end of time.

The current financial system is not a product of the Fed, but rather the government. Remember, the Fed is merely a body that makes policy suggestions, it doesn't actually create any sort of law or litigation.

Well, would you rather low GDP and low wealth inequality or the inverse?

.MASSHOLE.Partly? Sure, but it wasn't by it's fundamental actions but rather by the Board's policy decisions. But you also had a ton of factors outside of the Fed's control that contributed, including global economic sentiment, gold hoarding, etc. Some argue that the presence of the Fed post-collapse actually helped speed up the recovery.

Arguing whether or not the Fed has the people's best interests in mind is a fruitless endeavor.There are and will be points that can prove or disprove this statement until the end of time.

The current financial system is not a product of the Fed, but rather the government. Remember, the Fed is merely a body that makes policy suggestions, it doesn't actually create any sort of law or litigation.

Well, would you rather low GDP and low wealth inequality or the inverse?

Well, that's not too good then. Hadn't the fed been implemented into law on shady circumstances. I don't think it was particularity in the best interests of the government and the president who signed it into law later regretted it. It might only make policy suggestions but it can surely blackmail and force lawmakers to make decisions. This was true after Jekyll Island.

fuckmekevinWell, that's not too good then. Hadn't the fed been implemented into law on shady circumstances. I don't think it was particularity in the best interests of the government and the president who signed it into law later regretted it. It might only make policy suggestions but it can surely blackmail and force lawmakers to make decisions. This was true after Jekyll Island.

Well, it depends which iteration of the Fed you're referring to. The first semblance of a National Bank came about in the 1780s, then 1816, and finally 1913. I'm not too familiar with the earlier iterations, but the 1913 edition came after a banking panic and calls for banking and currency reforms.

If you want to call those shady circumstances, I'm going to have to disagree with you. Was it signed in secret? Sure, but as with most major legislative acts, there isn't much transparency because how much of the public actually understands issues this complex.

It can't blackmail or force lawmakers to make decisions because inherently the two groups have opposing views. The Federal Reserve focuses on long-term actions and outlook while Congress focuses on short-term actions and outlook. This is why more Federal oversight is, in my opinion, an awful idea. Politicizing the Fed is like putting the fox in the hen house.

.MASSHOLE.Well to put it simply, I'm assuming you know the basis of Federal Reserve actions here, the Federal Reserve focuses on two things, monetary policy (which involves debt purchases and sales, interests rates, and economic forecasts), and regulatory policy (basically telling banks what they can and cannot do, think Dodd-Frank).

Sure, the former is definitely more important, but the latter is key for preventing bank runs which can devastate an economy as well as working with Congress to develop rules surrounding consumer credit.

This all goes without mentioning the role of Lender of Last Resort, which as the last Financial Crisis showed, is really important.

Maybe my timeline is a little skewed, but wasn't there one recession and one depression (the great one) that were a result of bank runs? And wasn't the Fed already established at that time? Not to mention these bank runs were started by fake news published by bankers such as the Rockefellas among others, who simply wanted to consolidate the private banks.

Charlie_KellyMaybe my timeline is a little skewed, but wasn't there one recession and one depression (the great one) that were a result of bank runs? And wasn't the Fed already established at that time? Not to mention these bank runs were started by fake news published by bankers such as the Rockefellas among others, who simply wanted to consolidate the private banks.

So, you had a bank run in the early 20th century that was brought on by stock market manipulation (more like fraud). The result of this fraud was a run on the bank involved which later spread to other banks and a near collapse of the banking system. You actually had robber barons and wealthy individuals deposit their own money into some of these institutions to keep them afloat but still the panic didn't stop.

The end result? A sustained economic contraction, falling stock prices, and numerous bank/trust failures.

The real issue here came from the lack of emergency liquidity available for the banks/trusts that required private, wealthy individuals to inject liquidity in the form of their own private wealth. This is why the Fed was given the powers of lender of last resort.

The recession you are thinking of is likely the one I have mentioned above. The Great Depression came ~16 years after the formation of the Fed. And the role of the Fed in the Great Depression is a topic of debate.

I don't know where you are finding the idea that "fake news" started these bank runs. It was more financial mismanagement/fraud and the subsequent contagion that spread as people panicked over the initial news, hence the name banking panics. No banker in the pre-Fed era would ever want to risk a bank panic because there often were no safety nets.

.MASSHOLE.So, you had a bank run in the early 20th century that was brought on by stock market manipulation (more like fraud). The result of this fraud was a run on the bank involved which later spread to other banks and a near collapse of the banking system. You actually had robber barons and wealthy individuals deposit their own money into some of these institutions to keep them afloat but still the panic didn't stop.

The end result? A sustained economic contraction, falling stock prices, and numerous bank/trust failures.

The real issue here came from the lack of emergency liquidity available for the banks/trusts that required private, wealthy individuals to inject liquidity in the form of their own private wealth. This is why the Fed was given the powers of lender of last resort.

The recession you are thinking of is likely the one I have mentioned above. The Great Depression came ~16 years after the formation of the Fed. And the role of the Fed in the Great Depression is a topic of debate.

I don't know where you are finding the idea that "fake news" started these bank runs. It was more financial mismanagement/fraud and the subsequent contagion that spread as people panicked over the initial news, hence the name banking panics. No banker in the pre-Fed era would ever want to risk a bank panic because there often were no safety nets.

I believe it was the Rockefellers. They, with some other big names at the time, quietly exited the market. Then there was a news article published afterwards stating one of the largest banks in New York was failing, leading to the bank rush. It was believed that the Rockefellers were behind the publishing of the article, hoping that it would lead to the contraction you mentioned.

Trump discrediting the news referring to "fake news" is leading to the phenomena where nothing in the news is no longer real.

What Trump is trying to do is discredit the press so much until the point where nobody at all trusts the press and absolutely everything is questioned.

This is highly problematic because there is going to be a paradigm shift in the consciousness of society where information that the government releases is the only information that is received as valid.

Trump discrediting the validity of the press is in a sense censoring it, and by doing this the state is gaining more power over the media and evidently the government will have total control over what information is released and we will have only state-owned media

doublecupTrump discrediting the news referring to "fake news" is leading to the phenomena where nothing in the news is no longer real.

What Trump is trying to do is discredit the press so much until the point where nobody at all trusts the press and absolutely everything is questioned.

This is highly problematic because there is going to be a paradigm shift in the consciousness of society where information that the government releases is the only information that is received as valid.

Trump discrediting the validity of the press is in a sense censoring it, and by doing this the state is gaining more power over the media and evidently the government will have total control over what information is released and we will have only state-owned media

Anyone with a brain is capable of fact checking.

Charlie_KellyAnyone with a brain is capable of fact checking.

that is not the point. trump is saying that the facts are wrong regardless. there are no "facts" anymore, everything is bullshit and fake now.

like lets be real, even though there is video and picture evidence that barely anyone was at the Trump inauguration, he still says that the facts are wrong, the pictures are fake, and the video footage is bullshit

Trump is trying to create reality, by falsifying everything, and discrediting "facts", nothing is longer real. Unless the information comes from Trump or it is approved by him, everything is bullshit and fake.

the motherfucker is trying to claim that you can produce clean coal energy? like the guy is dumber that his fucking whore of a wife who bleaches his hair by pissing all over it

Charlie_KellyI believe it was the Rockefellers. They, with some other big names at the time, quietly exited the market. Then there was a news article published afterwards stating one of the largest banks in New York was failing, leading to the bank rush. It was believed that the Rockefellers were behind the publishing of the article, hoping that it would lead to the contraction you mentioned.

I've never seen this in any text book, journal, book, etc., could you provide a source?

.MASSHOLE.I've never seen this in any text book, journal, book, etc., could you provide a source?

brutha look at my posts. sources are not real anymore. this is a Trump world, we are living in a Trump reality.

regardless of your source, it is bullshit. unless the shit is approved by Trump, the facts in that source are wrong.

guys the ship is moving fast, this is a Trump world

thinking is not allowed, you bring up facts or science your a smart ass, a wise guy, or a fancy Harvard boy

you cant bring up facts any science anymore or speak against Trump, thats unAmerican, u bring up facts you hate America, you hate jobs, you hate our troops

dont be bringing up facts, facts and opinions and science are bad, Trump doesnt want any arguement, he doesnt want any debate over issues, just go with what he says bcuz u trying to be a smartass is un American

you speaking up against coal energy and using facts and science to explain that there is no such thing as "clean coal" is bad, you hate jobs, u want ppl unemployed, u hate american families.

i am warning you all, do not stir the pot with your fancy facts, you debating Trump on any issue is un-American ok. if you dont agree with Trump, get the fuck out of the country, or he will get one of his "supporters" to rough you up a bit

.MASSHOLE.I've never seen this in any text book, journal, book, etc., could you provide a source?

No direct link. And it was Morgan, not Rockefeller. It appears there are some historians that believe he published the rumors, but with no way to prove it (Morgan was obviously never pursued)

http://aheadoftheherd.com/Newsletter/2011/Admit-nothing-Explain-nothing.html

I can try to find more legit links when I'm not at work.

Charlie_KellyNo direct link. And it was Morgan, not Rockefeller. It appears there are some historians that believe he published the rumors, but with no way to prove it (Morgan was obviously never pursued)

http://aheadoftheherd.com/Newsletter/2011/Admit-nothing-Explain-nothing.html

I can try to find more legit links when I'm not at work.

there are no legit links anymore. there is only "fake news". any information that is not complicit with Trump principles and ideologies is un-American and probably written by "evil-doers" that hate our troops and shit on American values.

Over the weekend President Trump talks about migrants (both old and new) causing widespread crime and chaos across various parts of Sweden, and other European countries.

Mentally-deranged Swedish politicians act like Trump is making it up, and the fake news outfit over there at the Washington Post backs them up, with their great "fact-checkers".

Meanwhile, Sweden has banned from Swedish public libraries a book by a Kurdish economist that spotlights the relationship of mass migration to crime and other social problems, due to "racism".


And today, the migrant-heavy suburbs of Stockholm are burning (again), as if they were war zones.

https://www.newschoolers.com/videos/watch/859265/Sweden-Rinkeby-Riots


Move along now, nothing to see here.

CampeadorOver the weekend President Trump talks about migrants (both old and new) causing widespread crime and chaos across various parts of Sweden, and other European countries.

Mentally-deranged Swedish politicians act like Trump is making it up, and the fake news outfit over there at the Washington Post backs them up, with their great "fact-checkers".

Meanwhile, Sweden has banned from Swedish public libraries a book by a Kurdish economist that spotlights the relationship of mass migration to crime and other social problems, due to "racism".


And today, the migrant-heavy suburbs of Stockholm are burning (again), as if they were war zones.

https://www.newschoolers.com/videos/watch/859265/Sweden-Rinkeby-Riots


Move along now, nothing to see here.

state-run media is the only "true" news

unless the information is coming out Steve Bannon's fat ass, the information is simply not true

PPL THIS IS A TRUMP WORLD, A TRUMP REALITY, EITHER TAKE A SHIT OR GET OFF THE POT

this ship is moving fast and either get on it or ride it out, or your going to be left behind

"fake news" is stirring the pot, causing trouble, any media that isn't coming from the government is coming from anti-American "evil-doers", it is easier side with Trump than try to fight it, stop fighting it, let him pull u in, if you r not with Trump THAN YOU HATE AMERICA, YOU HATE THE TROOPS, YOU HATE JOBS

Charlie_KellyNo direct link. And it was Morgan, not Rockefeller. It appears there are some historians that believe he published the rumors, but with no way to prove it (Morgan was obviously never pursued)

http://aheadoftheherd.com/Newsletter/2011/Admit-nothing-Explain-nothing.html

I can try to find more legit links when I'm not at work.

Yeah, I have a tough time believing these kinds of rumors. JP Morgan was pretty hands-off the banking system by then (or so I was led to believe) and attempting to cause a bank run that could threaten the stability of the nation to create a central bank seems pretty out there if you ask me.

But who knows.

If anyone is actually curious about the Swedish Crime Statistics:

https://www.bra.se/download/18.4a33c027159a89523b17c401/1487173975453/Summary_NTU_2016.pdf
https://www.bra.se/download/18.cba82f7130f475a2f1800012697/1371914727881/2005_17_brottslighet_bland_personer_fodda_sverige_och_utlandet.pdf

And in regards to the rape/sexual assault numbers, here is a 2012 primer by the BBC.

Don't believe your lying eyes! Everything is fine!

Hahaha you are so full of shit.

.MASSHOLE.If anyone is actually curious about the Swedish Crime Statistics:

https://www.bra.se/download/18.4a33c027159a89523b17c401/1487173975453/Summary_NTU_2016.pdf
https://www.bra.se/download/18.cba82f7130f475a2f1800012697/1371914727881/2005_17_brottslighet_bland_personer_fodda_sverige_och_utlandet.pdf
]

You are an idiot, there are no actual crime statistics there, only the results of a telephone and internet survey.

You don't actually read any of this bullshit you link, do you?

doublecupstate-run media is the only "true" news

The supposed "state-run media" organizations in Europe are trying to keep news like this swept under the rug.

Once again, it seems everyones favorite member fails to understand what the definition of statistics is.

Statistics: noun, the practice or science of collecting and analyzing numerical data in large quantities, especially for the purpose of inferring proportions in a whole from those in a representative sample.


Nor does he mention that Bra is the agency under the MoJ that is responsible for these kinds of figures and that this is how they conduct this sort of work.

If anyone is curious about what Bra's website says its job is, here you go:

Brå primarily works to reduce crime and improve levels of safety in society by producing data and disseminating knowledge on crime and crime prevention work.

The Council also produces Sweden's official crime statistics, evaluates reforms, conducts research to develop new knowledge and provides support to local crime prevention work. The results of Brå's work are a basis for decision makers within the judicial system, the Parliament and the Government. Brå often works in collaboration with other organisations and public sector agencies.

But I'm sure Brietbart is more accurate than the government.

.MASSHOLE.Once again, it seems everyones favorite member fails to understand what the definition of statistics is.

Statistics: noun, the practice or science of collecting and analyzing numerical data in large quantities, especially for the purpose of inferring proportions in a whole from those in a representative sample.


Nor does he mention that Bra is the agency under the MoJ that is responsible for these kinds of figures and that this is how they conduct this sort of work.

If anyone is curious about what Bra's website says its job is, here you go:




But I'm sure Brietbart is more accurate than the government.

do you not get that statistics, scientific evidence, and facts are not relevant anymore?

none of that matters anymore, this is a Trump reality. Unless the information is approved by the Trump administration, no information bears any grounds to be true.

.MASSHOLE.If anyone is actually curious about the Swedish Crime Statistics:

.MASSHOLE.Once again, it seems everyones favorite member fails to understand what the definition of statistics is.

Statistics: noun, the practice or science of collecting and analyzing numerical data in large quantities, especially for the purpose of inferring proportions in a whole from those in a representative sample.

Nor does he mention that Bra is the agency under the MoJ that is responsible for these kinds of figures and that this is how they conduct this sort of work.

You aren't going to weasel your way out of this one.

You posted the source as if they were actual crime statistics for Sweden, yet all you linked to was a survey conducted to gauge people's perceptions and exposure to crime. The title of the damn report is even "Swedish Crime Survey".

Clearly you do not understand the difference between actual crime statistics, and survey statistics gathered through a telephone/internet survey. Perhaps we should base all crime statistics on this survey method, what do you think? Or maybe trying to play expert after a two-minute Google search led you to link the wrong statistics?

You just keep showing, over and over again, like a fucked up record stuck on repeat, how truly clueless you are.

Once again, our hero fails reading comprehension. I guess the Bra description is complicated English.

.MASSHOLE.Once again, our hero fails reading comprehension. I guess the Bra description is complicated English.

It would help if you read even past the title.

You haven't got a clue, as per usual, just admit it for once.