Forum
A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
Page 675 of 1419
FirstPreviousNextLast
baumhaeuer (245 D)
16 Nov 10 UTC
Conlangers of the forum, post!
Any conlangers on this site? Whether the conlang is your own, or someone else's, anybody out there?
1 reply
Open
mapleleaf (0 DX)
13 Nov 10 UTC
Just wanted to say hello to ivo publicly
Hello ivo.
22 replies
Open
Bob Genghiskhan (1233 D)
15 Nov 10 UTC
Password protected live game
110 point password game, set for one hour from now. Respond in this thread and I'll PM you the password about 10 minutes before game time.
3 replies
Open
Bob Genghiskhan (1233 D)
15 Nov 10 UTC
So, how does one enter a league?
Enquiring minds want to know.
3 replies
Open
abgemacht (1076 D(G))
14 Nov 10 UTC
This is a Gunboat Thread
Please, no cheating.
24 replies
Open
loftus99 (100 D)
15 Nov 10 UTC
Builds
The games I have played recently have only allowed me to build on my 3 starting sc's is this part of the game or is it some sort of glitch?
3 replies
Open
Ges (292 D)
14 Nov 10 UTC
Most and least destabilizing early CDs?
No Civil Disorder is good, but they seem not to be created equally. CDs by which countries are most likely to kill a game outright? Which can be reasonably successfully incorporated into ongoing diplomatic exchanges?
11 replies
Open
Dpddouglass (908 D)
14 Nov 10 UTC
101 pts 3 day turns WTA
New game, mature players only please.
1 reply
Open
P8er Jackson (0 DX)
14 Nov 10 UTC
gameID=41841
0 replies
Open
Hirsute (161 D)
14 Nov 10 UTC
England needed
We need a replacement player for England in <a href = "http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=41423">gameID=41423</a>.
You would have 3 SCs left. Not in a great position, but still playable.
2 replies
Open
trip (696 D(B))
14 Nov 10 UTC
?
If a player creates a game and leaves it before anyone else has joined, does the game cancel?
2 replies
Open
peter25 (0 DX)
14 Nov 10 UTC
anyone want to play today 5 min turns
join to the game star war 30 D to join.... will start in 2 hours
0 replies
Open
doofman (201 D)
14 Nov 10 UTC
People Playing 'gunboat wta-24'
This is the 3rd cd there will have been, and it should have been cancelled, even drawn a long time ago but Germany was being a twat and didn't and now Turkey and Italy have withdrawn those votes cos they think they have a chance of winning- fucking pointless selfish petty and worthless, just cancel or draw that shit
7 replies
Open
curtis (8870 D)
14 Nov 10 UTC
Moderator
Is there a moderator around.... I would like to contact them. Thanks.
6 replies
Open
spyman (424 D(G))
11 Nov 10 UTC
Replacement needed in my games
I have to stop playing at webdip and I hoping someone can rake over my games.
6 replies
Open
Ebay (966 D)
05 Nov 10 UTC
Another Ebay Challenge game!
Yes that's right. I'm looking to start another high caliber, high stakes, password protected, Anon game. So, if you've played in one of my games before, missed one before, played me at some other time or would just like to play a good game then post interest here. Once I have 7 players I'll create the game. I'll be looking for the best players possible so it's not first come first serve.
42 replies
Open
P8er Jackson (0 DX)
13 Nov 10 UTC
great game
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=41744
1 reply
Open
Kev_nst (998 D)
12 Nov 10 UTC
marvelous backstab
I was Persia and I was allied with Greece who left his back totally vulnerable. I stole from him 4 sc with one single stab, lol:
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=39738#gamePanel
31 replies
Open
Draugnar (0 DX)
13 Nov 10 UTC
Er... Mapleleaf = A Palm Feeler?
...
4 replies
Open
abgemacht (1076 D(G))
09 Nov 10 UTC
A Must See: The Walking Dead
A new show from AMC. Absolutely fantastic! A must see for anyone who's a fan of zombie apocalypse/survival horror. Very high production value. First episode can be found on Hulu. Or, you know, the rest of the Internet.
58 replies
Open
jdiplomate (100 D)
10 Nov 10 UTC
JDiplomacy
Hello, I'd like to present my own version of Diplomacy, please take a look ! :)

http://www.jdiplomacy.net
12 replies
Open
JesusPetry (258 D)
11 Nov 10 UTC
New gunboat
gameID=41630

35 D, 36h, anonymous WTA.
2 replies
Open
Troodonte (3379 D)
11 Nov 10 UTC
Gunboat Means Never Having To Say You're Sorry-2
Game finished.
gameID=39868
19 replies
Open
Sinon (133 D)
12 Nov 10 UTC
World Gunboat, anyone?
gameID=41663

30 point buy in, WTA.... the password is, of course, swordfish
3 replies
Open
himethisisme (839 D)
12 Nov 10 UTC
Italy needed
He's not in terrible shape, actually. gameID=41162 if anyone's interested.
3 replies
Open
stratagos (3269 D(S))
10 Nov 10 UTC
US Deficit Cutting Plan
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-10/deficit-reduction-panel-s-plan-would-seek-to-cut-social-security-medicare.html
Page 2 of 4
FirstPreviousNextLast
 
largeham (149 D)
11 Nov 10 UTC
What. The. Fuck. Inflation is good? Sure, it devalues your debt, but that is domestic debt. Your international debt stays the same or rises, as the your currency value falls dramatically. As for devaluing debt, your purchasing power also falls, so even if your wage rises to match inflation, what you are saying means that you will be back to square one on the domestic front, and two steps back internationally. And that doesn't look at how it affects those on pensions, welfare, etc as these are generally fixed, they don't fluctuate with inflation.
Darwyn (1601 D)
11 Nov 10 UTC
stratagos,

Yer a good guy, I have no problem with you personally so don't take anything I say too harshly. But as Tolstoy mentioned, we are already bankrupt. The US financial system is dead with no chance at resuscitation. So talking about reform is pointless.

The only solution is to hit the reset button. I'm not suggesting that this will be painless by any means. But any pains endured during a reset will pale in comparison to the pains that would be endured by trying to reform. Reform will not generate results! The bankers already know the system is fucked. They are trying to loot every last penny from us before their gig is up. So by even trying to have a discussion about "reform", you have fallen into their trap because the longer you and I sit here and talk about fixes, the longer they have to steal more money from the American taxpayers.

Greenspan has admitted to fraud at the highest levels while Americans who've been directly effected by this fraud sleep in the streets. There is something seriously wrong with anyone not upset by this.

As to your attitude that I was less than thrilled with, I was referring to your mockery of anyone "screaming" about losing benefits and wanting more money, not less. The people have every damn right to be pissed off and seething with anger that the very same government that voted for TARP against the will of the people are the ones calling for you and I to make do with less so that the rich may have more.

@goldfinger - think about it. If you run a country, you have two options for getting your citizens a currency with which to conduct business: A) issue your own currency or B) Hire ME to handle it.

You can't be bothered to do it yourself so I will do it for you and charge you a fee. 10% say. I print up $100 for you so that you can distribute it to your citizens. You now owe me $110. Where do you get the extra $10 to pay me off and satisfy your debt to me? You don't. More debt exists than there is money in the system to cover it. Congratulations, you just sold your people into slavery under my rule. The only way out is to cut my head off to keep me from collecting. That's called a revolution...and its coming.

This goes beyond controlling interest rates...that's just a bonus they use to control you even more. They can manipulate the system and crash it at will.

This country was started with Congress issuing its own money as the COTUSofA mandates. And it was prosperous. There have been exactly three central banks in United States history. The first two failed after only 20 or so years, one of which was targeted vehemently by Andrew Jackson (to which he was thanked with an assassination attempt). The third is the Federal Reserve...a private bank owned by 13 of the wealthiest people on earth. Since its inception in 1913, the dollar has lost 95% of its value. 'nuff said.

"If Congress has the right under the Constitution to issue paper money,
it was given to be used by themselves, not to be delegated to individuals
or corporations." - Andrew Jackson

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." -- Thomas Jefferson

"Give me control over a nation's currency and I care not who makes its laws." -- Baron M.A. Rothschild (1744 - 1812)

"Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter, I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves." - Andrew Jackson

"The bold effort the present (central) bank had made to control the government ... are but premonitions of the fate that await the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it." - Andrew Jackson


I think you get the idea...
stratagos (3269 D(S))
11 Nov 10 UTC
Darwyn, I also think you're a good guy, but I take issue with the following statement:

"The only solution is to hit the reset button. I'm not suggesting that this will be painless by any means. But any pains endured during a reset will pale in comparison to the pains that would be endured by trying to reform."

You've laid forth a few statements here:

1 - Reform won't work
2 - Even if reform worked, it would be worse to try than to just "hit the reset button"

***

A couple points:

A - You have yet to define what "the reset button" is supposed to do.
B - You have a statement that Reset is superior to Reform, but you offer nothing to back that up. Except some quotes, which are nice and all, but I'm looking for some numbers, not words from famous dead white guys.

What you are suggesting is a change far more radical than reform. And that is your right. But you are *also* making statements that your idea is *obviously* superior, and that is nowhere near a given.

I'm well aware the economy is a giant house of cards. This holds true for the vast majority of business, as well as pretty much any bank that lends more than they hold in deposit reserves - ie: all of them.

But while I agree the current system is broke, you seem to be seeing it as a binary solution set - and I'm saying, that's just not true.
Hitting the reset button pretty much means the same thing as a revolution, no?
stratagos (3269 D(S))
11 Nov 10 UTC
Bob, I'm deliberately not trying to make assumptions on what Darwyn is suggesting
Darwyn (1601 D)
11 Nov 10 UTC
Fair enough...

A- the reset button is effectively a revolution, as Bob mentioned. The goal would be to dismantle the current government, invoke the principle of odious debt and set up a new government. http://www.jubileeusa.org/truth-about-debt/dont-owe-wont-pay/the-concept-of-odious-debt.html

B - If reform is destined to fail, then I see the reset as a superior option to reform.

We both agree that the current system is broke. All I'm doing is taking that step further and saying that not only is it broke, it is unfixable. And it is unfixable because it was designed that way. Issuing currency at interest is the crux of the problem from which all other symptoms appear. Addressing that first and foremost will alleviate everything else. Failure to do this is simply taking the plug out of one hole to sticking it in the other because there are too many holes and not enough plugs.
stratagos (3269 D(S))
11 Nov 10 UTC
I think you're reaching. Seriously. Jubilee USA, according to what I'm reading, is proposing debt relief for nations like *Haiti*, where they can't even build roads, not us, where we're cranking out two new supercarriers a decade.

"In international law, odious debt is a legal theory which holds that the national debt incurred by a regime for purposes that do not serve the best interests of the nation, such as wars of aggression, should not be enforceable. Such debts are thus considered by this doctrine to be personal debts of the regime that incurred them and not debts of the state. In some respects, the concept is analogous to the invalidity of contracts signed under coercion."

This is when you have a dictator who puts a bunch of money in his bank account, not when you have a nation who likes to spend more than they like to pay.

"Issuing currency at interest is the crux of the problem from which all other symptoms appear"

"Resetting" the debt won't stop currency from being issued at interest. And this is another example of a statement that doesn't appear to be supported by anything rather than your personal belief that it is true. I'm not saying arguments don't *exist*, I'm saying you haven't laid them out. Before you do so, though, finish reading.

Interest on the debt is about 5% of spending, and the budget deficit was, what, 15, 20% of the budget? So even if the interest payments went away, you're still going to need to lop 15% or so off the budget. Social Security, Defense, and Medicaid are the big three. Where are you going to trim?

Look, I'm going to be honest - the odds of you convincing me that a revolution is more effective that reform are next to nil. I'm open minded, but that doesn't mean I accept that all propositions need to be considered equally. You're also ignoring the fact that simply 'resetting' isn't going to stop this future government from taking us down the same rat hole.

So I'm just going to have to agree to disagree with you rather than have us both talk past each other. You appear to be convinced that reform is pointless; I think basically tossing the entire government in the crapper without even trying to fix it is lunacy.
fiedler (1293 D)
11 Nov 10 UTC
this is pretty silly, you want to 'reset' a system that is so successful it pretty much dominates the entire frickin globe. I don't see how it's hopelessly broken, countries like brazil have had astronomical debt for decades now, and they still soldier on.
Doesn't a revolution involve a serious amount of pain? Most of them do. Are we to the point in the US where a revolution involves less aggregate pain to the citizenry than continuing under our current kleptocracy?
Darwyn (1601 D)
11 Nov 10 UTC
@ stratagos - "Resetting" the debt won't stop currency from being issued at interest."

You are aware that it is possible to issue money without interest right? In fact this country was founded that way and was prosperous. Tell me why we aren't doing this?! Or are you suggesting that the bankers know what's best for the people?

I don't have all the answers...but this I do know: when you issue currency at interest you create more debt than there is money to pay it back.

That is indentured servitude, BY DESIGN. And it needs to go away. I really don't care how, jubilee, revolution, reset, etc...it just needs to end. There is no reform stratagos! There never was. You absolutely cannot reform a system that is designed to keep you in debt. You can shift the money this way and that, cut this or that, but you will STILL be in debt with all the same problems. Stop looking and arguing the minutia and start looking at the bigger picture here.

Why do you advocate and argue to reform a system that is inherently bad for you when there is CLEARLY something far better that was purposefully put in place to avoid the exact problems this system is currently causing us? I cannot understand this for the life of me. Please explain it.

@ Bob - as you so admit, we are a kleptocracy. What pain isn't worth your freedom from this?
stratagos (3269 D(S))
11 Nov 10 UTC
"You are aware that it is possible to issue money without interest right? "

Yes, but you are assuming that A must be followed by B. This is not a given.

In other words, even if you wipe the debt, there is no guarantee you're going to get your interest free currency.

With respect, you should not make assumptions about what I do and do not know about history and finance. I'm not just talking out of my ass on some of this shit, dude

"Why do you advocate and argue to reform a system that is inherently bad for you when there is CLEARLY something far better that was purposefully put in place to avoid the exact problems this system is currently causing us? I cannot understand this for the life of me. Please explain it."

Because I'm not convinced that there is CLEARLY something far better. Or that if there is, that what you're putting forward is what it is. Using CAPS and being impassioned doesn't make something true, or they'd be teaching Intelligent Design in schools.

You have failed - or to be more accurate, you have not been given a reasonable forum, nor an audience that feels motivated to debate this issue - to prove that your idea is superior enough to what we deal with now to deal with the massive chaos that enacting your plan would entail.

You can easily make a case that the current system is broke, but you are *not* making a case that your way is both a) Better, and b) Better than any other alternative.

"Stop looking and arguing the minutia and start looking at the bigger picture here."

Because the friggin details *matter*! Just because I thought Sicarius's idea of just basically seizing foreclosed homes and handing them out like halloween candy was disastrous, I think you're so focused on money and interest that you don't give a damn about the negative consequences of the plan you put forward. In fact, you don't seem to *care* - you seem to basically be saying "The current system sucks, this will work better in my view, and if that means that a bunch of people are destitute, starve to death, ect, well, at least we have an economy that works."

And that's *just as unethical* as bankers fucking around with TARP money
stratagos (3269 D(S))
11 Nov 10 UTC
Look, Darwyn. This is silly

1 - I'm not going to support your idea without overwhelming evidence

2 - I'm not really *open* to reading overwhelming evidence even if you were able to produce it, because the whole idea is wacky as hell, and I've gotten very tired of slogging through manifestos and pointing out the inconsistencies, logical flaws, and hypocrisy they contain.

3 - You are, quite frankly, indistinguishable from any psuedoscience peddler to me during this conversation. You're making so many fallacies in what you put forth that it's making my head hurt - not because you're lying, but because you're assuming what you say is correct without *any* serious evidence to back it up. I don't *care* how the economy was structured 100 years ago - 100 years ago we were an agrarian / manufacturing society, and we're *not* any longer. Little details like that *matter*

4 - No matter what I say, you're not going to believe reform is feasible or a good idea

So we can talk at each other - and both lose - or we can just call it a draw. I'm not interested in a battle to convince you, both because I don't necessarily *have* a better idea - but just because I don't have a better idea doesn't mean I'm going to go shoot everyone over 65 to cut medicare expenses.

Note I'm not saying that's what your suggesting, but the point I'm trying to make is that *just because the current system sucks* doesn't mean your idea is a *good one*. Or cutting all spending except the military and streetlights. Or becoming a Socialist Paradise.

It's not a binary solution set. Your idea has to stand on it's own merit, not just because the current system sucks - and I don't think you can really make that case. Not because you are dishonest, but because the idea is so extreme you'll need to stop buzzwording and start putting forth some research and numbers, and that's not something that is going to be easy to deliver.
Darwyn (1601 D)
11 Nov 10 UTC
This is very, very simple stratagos...

Issuing money at interest creates more debt than there is money to pay it back.

Bring that statement to its logical conclusion, that is all I'm asking.
Darwyn (1601 D)
11 Nov 10 UTC
Here's a question...what happens when you cannot repay a debt?
stratagos (3269 D(S))
11 Nov 10 UTC
I'll answer your questions when you answer mine ;)
stratagos (3269 D(S))
11 Nov 10 UTC
and it's *not* simple, or people would just friggin *do it*. You're either oversimplfying or you don't understand what you're suggesting
@Darwyn- A Great Leap Forward, La Terreur, or Year Zero, or any other of the tens of post-revolutionary charnel house phases.
Darwyn (1601 D)
11 Nov 10 UTC
The concept is simple...it's the ramifications of that concept that are not. I am arguing the concept. You are arguing the ramifications. So our questions and arguments are on different planes.

Let's get on the same plane...If I may, I will copy/paste an article that explains my view:

Let me begin by explaining what money is. Money is a commodity that measures the value of all other commodities and services. Prices are a ratio of money to all other goods for sale. If the ratio remains constant then there is no inflation. For example, if the money supply were one trillion dollars and production increased by 4%, then we could increase the money supply by 4% without fear of inflation.

So, you ask, how do banks and governments differ in how they create money? Imagine it is in the early 19th century and we are shipwrecked on an island far from the shipping lanes with no immediate chance of rescue. I would open a bank. I would find an artist to help me create one thousand one dollar bills. I would spend these "Island Treasury Notes" into circulation by paying anyone who did community work, such as, building a clinic or a school. I would have a popular government as I would dispense more social services than I took from the people in taxation.

Now imagine you are stranded on an island with a New York or London banker. He would set up a private bank and create money which he would loan to you. Notice he is not loaning you anyone's savings. He is functioning as a counterfeiter. He is using loan agreements to pass counterfeit money. And he is requiring you to pay interest on his forgeries. This form of banking is nothing more than a theft as it will eventually through monetary creation, interest payments, inflation and depression transfer all wealth from those who produce wealth to those who print the currency.
------------------------------------------
There have been three central banks in our nation's history. The first two, while deceptive and fraudulent, pale in comparison to the scope and size of the fraud being perpetrated by our current FED. What they all have in common is an insidious practice known as "fractional banking."

Fractional banking or fractional lending is the ability to create money from nothing, lend it to the government or someone else and charge interest to boot. The practice evolved before banks existed. Goldsmiths rented out space in their vaults to individuals and merchants for storage of their gold or silver. The goldsmiths gave these "depositors" a certificate that showed the amount of gold stored. These certificates were then used to conduct business.

In time the goldsmiths noticed that the gold in their vaults was rarely withdrawn. Small amounts would move in and out but the large majority never moved. Sensing a profit opportunity, the goldsmiths issued double receipts for the gold, in effect creating money (certificates) from nothing and then lending those certificates (creating debt) to depositors and charging them interest as well.

Since the certificates represented more gold than actually existed, the certificates were "fractionally" backed by gold. Eventually some of these vault operations were transformed into banks and the practice of fractional banking continued.





John F. Kennedy vs The Federal Reserve


Email This Page To A Friend

What Really Happened
Powered by Translate



0diggsdigg



By John P. Curran



On June 4, 1963, a virtually unknown Presidential decree, Executive Order 11110, was signed with the authority to basically strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the United States Federal Government at interest. With the stroke of a pen, President Kennedy declared that the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank would soon be out of business. The Christian Law Fellowship has exhaustively researched this matter through the Federal Register and Library of Congress. We can now safely conclude that this Executive Order has never been repealed, amended, or superceded by any subsequent Executive Order. In simple terms, it is still valid.



When President John Fitzgerald Kennedy - the author of Profiles in Courage -signed this Order, it returned to the federal government, specifically the Treasury Department, the Constitutional power to create and issue currency -money - without going through the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank. President Kennedy's Executive Order 11110 [the full text is displayed further below] gave the Treasury Department the explicit authority: "to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury." This means that for every ounce of silver in the U.S. Treasury's vault, the government could introduce new money into circulation based on the silver bullion physically held there. As a result, more than $4 billion in United States Notes were brought into circulation in $2 and $5 denominations. $10 and $20 United States Notes were never circulated but were being printed by the Treasury Department when Kennedy was assassinated. It appears obvious that President Kennedy knew the Federal Reserve Notes being used as the purported legal currency were contrary to the Constitution of the United States of America.



"United States Notes" were issued as an interest-free and debt-free currency backed by silver reserves in the U.S. Treasury. We compared a "Federal Reserve Note" issued from the private central bank of the United States (the Federal Reserve Bank a/k/a Federal Reserve System), with a "United States Note" from the U.S. Treasury issued by President Kennedy's Executive Order. They almost look alike, except one says "Federal Reserve Note" on the top while the other says "United States Note". Also, the Federal Reserve Note has a green seal and serial number while the United States Note has a red seal and serial number.



President Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963 and the United States Notes he had issued were immediately taken out of circulation. Federal Reserve Notes continued to serve as the legal currency of the nation. According to the United States Secret Service, 99% of all U.S. paper "currency" circulating in 1999 are Federal Reserve Notes.



Kennedy knew that if the silver-backed United States Notes were widely circulated, they would have eliminated the demand for Federal Reserve Notes. This is a very simple matter of economics. The USN was backed by silver and the FRN was not backed by anything of intrinsic value. Executive Order 11110 should have prevented the national debt from reaching its current level (virtually all of the nearly $9 trillion in federal debt has been created since 1963) if LBJ or any subsequent President were to enforce it. It would have almost immediately given the U.S. Government the ability to repay its debt without going to the private Federal Reserve Banks and being charged interest to create new "money". Executive Order 11110 gave the U.S.A. the ability to, once again, create its own money backed by silver and realm value worth something.





Again, according to our own research, just five months after Kennedy was assassinated, no more of the Series 1958 "Silver Certificates" were issued either, and they were subsequently removed from circulation. Perhaps the assassination of JFK was a warning to all future presidents not to interfere with the private Federal Reserve's control over the creation of money. It seems very apparent that President Kennedy challenged the "powers that exist behind U.S. and world finance". With true patriotic courage, JFK boldly faced the two most successful vehicles that have ever been used to drive up debt:

1) war (Viet Nam); and,

2) the creation of money by a privately owned central bank.

His efforts to have all U.S. troops out of Vietnam by 1965 combined with Executive Order 11110 would have destroyed the profits and control of the private Federal Reserve Bank.



Executive Order 11110

AMENDMENT OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 10289 AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE PERFORMANCE OF CERTAIN FUNCTIONS AFFECTING THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY. By virtue of the authority vested in me by section 301 of title 3 of the United States Code, it is ordered as follows:



SECTION 1. Executive Order No. 10289 of September 19, 1951, as amended, is hereby further amended - (a) By adding at the end of paragraph 1 thereof the following subparagraph (j): "(j) The authority vested in the President by paragraph (b) of section 43 of the Act of May 12, 1933, as amended (31 U.S.C. 821 (b)), to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury not then held for redemption of any outstanding silver certificates, to prescribe the denominations of such silver certificates, and to coin standard silver dollars and subsidiary silver currency for their redemption," and (b) By revoking subparagraphs (b) and (c) of paragraph 2 thereof. SECTION 2. The amendment made by this Order shall not affect any act done, or any right accruing or accrued or any suit or proceeding had or commenced in any civil or criminal cause prior to the date of this Order but all such liabilities shall continue and may be enforced as if said amendments had not been made.



JOHN F. KENNEDY THE WHITE HOUSE, June 4, 1963 xoxox



Once again, Executive Order 11110 is still valid. According to Title 3, United States Code, Section 301 dated January 26, 1998:



Executive Order (EO) 10289 dated Sept. 17, 1951, 16 F.R. 9499, was as amended by:



Ø EO 10583, dated December 18, 1954, 19 F.R. 8725;

Ø EO 10882 dated July 18, 1960, 25 F.R. 6869;

Ø EO 11110 dated June 4, 1963, 28 F.R. 5605;

Ø EO 11825 dated December 31, 1974, 40 F.R. 1003;

Ø EO 12608 dated September 9, 1987, 52 F.R. 34617



The 1974 and 1987 amendments, added after Kennedy's 1963 amendment, did not change or alter any part of Kennedy's EO 11110. A search of Clinton's 1998 and 1999 EO's and Presidential Directives has also shown no reference to any alterations, suspensions, or changes to EO 11110.



The Federal Reserve Bank, a.k.a Federal Reserve System, is a Private Corporation. Black's Law Dictionary defines the "Federal Reserve System" as: "Network of twelve central banks to which most national banks belong and to which state chartered banks may belong. Membership rules require investment of stock and minimum reserves." Privately-owned banks own the stock of the FED. This was explained in more detail in the case of Lewis v. United States, Federal Reporter, 2nd Series, Vol. 680, Pages 1239, 1241 (1982), where the court said: "Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region. The stock-holding commercial banks elect two thirds of each Bank's nine member board of directors".



The Federal Reserve Banks are locally controlled by their member banks. Once again, according to Black's Law Dictionary, we find that these privately owned banks actually issue money:



"Federal Reserve Act. Law which created Federal Reserve banks which act as agents in maintaining money reserves, issuing money in the form of bank notes, lending money to banks, and supervising banks. Administered by Federal Reserve Board (q.v.)". The privately owned Federal Reserve (FED) banks actually issue (create) the "money" we use. In 1964, the House Committee on Banking and Currency, Subcommittee on Domestic Finance, at the second session of the 88th Congress, put out a study entitled Money Facts which contains a good description of what the FED is: "The Federal Reserve is a total money-making machine. It can issue money or checks. And it never has a problem of making its checks good because it can obtain the $5 and $10 bills necessary to cover its check simply by asking the Treasury Department's Bureau of Engraving to print them".



Any one person or any closely knit group who has a lot of money has a lot of power. Now imagine a group of people who have the power to create money. Imagine the power these people would have. This is exactly what the privately owned FED is!



No man did more to expose the power of the FED than Louis T. McFadden, who was the Chairman of the House Banking Committee back in the 1930s. In describing the FED, he remarked in the Congressional Record, House pages 1295 and 1296 on June 10, 1932:



"Mr. Chairman, we have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal reserve banks. The Federal Reserve Board, a Government Board, has cheated the Government of the United States and he people of the United States out of enough money to pay the national debt. The depredations and the iniquities of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal reserve banks acting together have cost this country enough money to pay the national debt several times over. This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of the United States; has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through the maladministration of that law by which the Federal Reserve Board, and through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it".



Some people think the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government institutions. They are not Government institutions, departments, or agencies. They are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers. Those 12 private credit monopolies were deceitfully placed upon this country by bankers who came here from Europe and who repaid us for our hospitality by undermining our American institutions.



The FED basically works like this: The government granted its power to create money to the FED banks. They create money, then loan it back to the government charging interest. The government levies income taxes to pay the interest on the debt. On this point, it's interesting to note that the Federal Reserve Act and the sixteenth amendment, which gave congress the power to collect income taxes, were both passed in 1913. The incredible power of the FED over the economy is universally admitted. Some people, especially in the banking and academic communities, even support it. On the other hand, there are those, such as President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, that have spoken out against it. His efforts were spoken about in Jim Marrs' 1990 book Crossfire:"



Another overlooked aspect of Kennedy's attempt to reform American society involves money. Kennedy apparently reasoned that by returning to the constitution, which states that only Congress shall coin and regulate money, the soaring national debt could be reduced by not paying interest to the bankers of the Federal Reserve System, who print paper money then loan it to the government at interest. He moved in this area on June 4, 1963, by signing Executive Order 11110 which called for the issuance of $4,292,893,815 in United States Notes through the U.S. Treasury rather than the traditional Federal Reserve System. That same day, Kennedy signed a bill changing the backing of one and two dollar bills from silver to gold, adding strength to the weakened U.S. currency.



Kennedy's comptroller of the currency, James J. Saxon, had been at odds with the powerful Federal Reserve Board for some time, encouraging broader investment and lending powers for banks that were not part of the Federal Reserve system. Saxon also had decided that non-Reserve banks could underwrite state and local general obligation bonds, again weakening the dominant Federal Reserve banks".



In a comment made to a Columbia University class on Nov. 12, 1963,



Ten days before his assassination, President John Fitzgerald Kennedy allegedly said:



"The high office of the President has been used to foment a plot to destroy the American's freedom and before I leave office, I must inform the citizen of this plight."



In this matter, John Fitzgerald Kennedy appears to be the subject of his own book... a true Profile of Courage.



This research report was compiled for Lawgiver. Org. by Anthony Wayne xoxox



What is the Federal Reserve Bank?



What is the Federal Reserve Bank (FED) and why do we have it?

by Greg Hobbs November 1, 1999



The FED is a central bank. Central banks are supposed to implement a country's fiscal policies. They monitor commercial banks to ensure that they maintain sufficient assets, like cash, so as to remain solvent and stable. Central banks also do business, such as currency exchanges and gold transactions, with other central banks. In theory, a central bank should be good for a country, and they might be if it wasn't for the fact that they are not owned or controlled by the government of the country they are serving. Private central banks, including our FED, operate not in the interest of the public good but for profit.



There have been three central banks in our nation's history. The first two, while deceptive and fraudulent, pale in comparison to the scope and size of the fraud being perpetrated by our current FED. What they all have in common is an insidious practice known as "fractional banking."



Fractional banking or fractional lending is the ability to create money from nothing, lend it to the government or someone else and charge interest to boot. The practice evolved before banks existed. Goldsmiths rented out space in their vaults to individuals and merchants for storage of their gold or silver. The goldsmiths gave these "depositors" a certificate that showed the amount of gold stored. These certificates were then used to conduct business.



In time the goldsmiths noticed that the gold in their vaults was rarely withdrawn. Small amounts would move in and out but the large majority never moved. Sensing a profit opportunity, the goldsmiths issued double receipts for the gold, in effect creating money (certificates) from nothing and then lending those certificates (creating debt) to depositors and charging them interest as well.



Since the certificates represented more gold than actually existed, the certificates were "fractionally" backed by gold. Eventually some of these vault operations were transformed into banks and the practice of fractional banking continued.

Keep that fractional banking concept in mind as we examine our first central bank, the First Bank of the United States (BUS). It was created, after bitter dissent in the Congress, in 1791 and chartered for 20 years. A scam not unlike the current FED, the BUS used its control of the currency to defraud the public and establish a legal form of usury.

This bank practiced fractional lending at a 10:1 rate, ten dollars of loans for each dollar they had on deposit. This misuse and abuse of their public charter continued for the entire 20 years of their existence. Public outrage over these abuses was such that the charter was not renewed and the bank ceased to exist in 1811.

The war of 1812 left the country in economic chaos, seen by bankers as another opportunity for easy profits. They influenced Congress to charter the second central bank, the Second Bank of the United States (SBUS), in 1816.

The SBUS was more expansive than the BUS. The SBUS sold franchises and literally doubled the number of banks in a short period of time. The country began to boom and move westward, which required money. Using fractional lending at the 10:1 rate, the central bank and their franchisees created the debt/money for the expansion.

Things boomed for a while, then the banks decided to shut off the debt/money, citing the need to control inflation. This action on the part of the SBUS caused bankruptcies and foreclosures. The banks then took control of the assets that were used as security against the loans.

Closely examine how the SBUS engineered this cycle of prosperity and depression. The central bank caused inflation by creating debt/money for loans and credit and making these funds readily available. The economy boomed. Then they used the inflation which they created as an excuse to shut off the loans/credit/money.
-----------------------------
President Andrew Jackson won the presidency in 1828 with the promise to end the national debt and eliminate the SBUS. During his second term President Jackson withdrew all government funds from the bank and on January 8, 1835, paid off the national debt. He is the only president in history to have this distinction. The charter of the SBUS expired in 1836.

Without a central bank to manipulate the supply of money, the United States experienced unprecedented growth for 60 or 70 years, and the resulting wealth was too much for bankers to endure. They had to get back into the game. So, in 1910 Senator Nelson Aldrich, then Chairman of the National Monetary Commission, in collusion with representatives of the European central banks, devised a plan to pressure and deceive Congress into enacting legislation that would covertly establish a private central bank.

This bank would assume control over the American economy by controlling the issuance of its money. After a huge public relations campaign, engineered by the foreign central banks, the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was slipped through Congress during the Christmas recess, with many members of the Congress absent. President Woodrow Wilson, pressured by his political and financial backers, signed it on December 23, 1913.

The act created the Federal Reserve System, a name carefully selected and designed to deceive. "Federal" would lead one to believe that this is a government organization. "Reserve" would lead one to believe that the currency is being backed by gold and silver. "System" was used in lieu of the word "bank" so that one would not conclude that a new central bank had been created.

In reality, the act created a private, for profit, central banking corporation owned by a cartel of private banks. Who owns the FED? The Rothschilds of London and Berlin; Lazard Brothers of Paris; Israel Moses Seif of Italy; Kuhn, Loeb and Warburg of Germany; and the Lehman Brothers, Goldman, Sachs and the Rockefeller families of New York.

Did you know that the FED is the only for-profit corporation in America that is exempt from both federal and state taxes? The FED takes in about one trillion dollars per year tax free! The banking families listed above get all that money.

Almost everyone thinks that the money they pay in taxes goes to the US Treasury to pay for the expenses of the government. Do you want to know where your tax dollars really go? If you look at the back of any check made payable to the IRS you will see that it has been endorsed as "Pay Any F.R.B. Branch or Gen. Depository for Credit U.S. Treas. This is in Payment of U.S. Oblig." Yes, that's right, every dime you pay in income taxes is given to those private banking families, commonly known as the FED, tax free.
--------------------------
Today's banks are members of the Federal Reserve Banking System. This membership makes it legal for them to create money from nothing and lend it to you. Today's banks, like the goldsmiths of old, realize that only a small fraction of the money deposited in their banks is ever actually withdrawn in the form of cash. Only about 4 percent of all the money that exists is in the form of currency. The rest of it is simply a computer entry.

Let's say you're approved to borrow $10,000 to do some home improvements. You know that the bank didn't actually take $10,000 from its pile of cash and put it into your pile? They simply went to their computer and input an entry of $10,000 into your account. They created, from thin air, a debt which you have to secure with an asset and repay with interest. The bank is allowed to create and lend as much debt as they want as long as they do not exceed the 10:1 ratio imposed by the FED.

It sort of puts a new slant on how you view your friendly bank, doesn't it? How about those loan committees that scrutinize you with a microscope before approving the loan they created from thin air. What a hoot! They make it complex for a reason. They don't want you to understand what they are doing. People fear what they do not understand. You are easier to delude and control when you are ignorant and afraid

Now to put the frosting on this cake. When was the income tax created? If you guessed 1913, the same year that the FED was created, you get a gold star. Coincidence? What are the odds? If you are going to use the FED to create debt, who is going to repay that debt? The income tax was created to complete the illusion that real money had been lent and therefore real money had to be repaid. And you thought Houdini was good.
-----------------

It's along read, I apologize, but please do take the time to read it and understand it.

We have ALL been duped by the bankers. The quicker we admit it, the quicker we can get our country back. What happens during this process is far more acceptable to me than to continue under the slavery that we have now. Cuz as of right now, you are advocating slavery stratagos, whether you realize it or not. So arguing reform means absolutely nothing to me.
Darwyn (1601 D)
11 Nov 10 UTC
Holy hell! it wasn't meant to be that long, I apologize...

You can skip over the JFK parts and Executive order parts, they aren't needed.
stratagos (3269 D(S))
11 Nov 10 UTC
"The concept is simple...it's the ramifications of that concept that are not. I am arguing the concept. You are arguing the ramifications. "


I think that's kind of the point I'm trying to make. Lots of concepts are simple, but when you get to the execution is when the problems crop up. I'm not willing to accept the *concept* is valid if you can't find a way to execute, any more than I would with socialism or monarchy
Darwyn (1601 D)
11 Nov 10 UTC
The copy/paste I made explains why the concept we are working under presently amounts to slavery and points out why the concept I advocate (interest free money creation) works perfectly well and is backed by historical example.

One is wrong and enslaves people...the other prospers a country.

The validity is right before your eyes.
Darwyn (1601 D)
11 Nov 10 UTC
Seriously, what part don't you get here?
stratagos (3269 D(S))
11 Nov 10 UTC
Dude, what part of "I'm not going to read five hundred pages of stuff" and "if you're not even going to attempt to answer questions about the consequences of your idea I'm not going to bother considering it" were unclear?
Darwyn (1601 D)
11 Nov 10 UTC
I do apologize for the lengthy post, but it explains my position far better than I could so that's a damn poor excuse to not read it...especially since we've both invested the better part of today discussing this.

I will post a shorter version and spare you from the work...

Money is a commodity that measures the value of all other commodities and services. Prices are a ratio of money to all other goods for sale. If the ratio remains constant then there is no inflation. For example, if the money supply were one trillion dollars and production increased by 4%, then we could increase the money supply by 4% without fear of inflation.

So, you ask, how do banks and governments differ in how they create money? Imagine it is in the early 19th century and we are shipwrecked on an island far from the shipping lanes with no immediate chance of rescue. I would open a bank. I would find an artist to help me create one thousand one dollar bills. I would spend these "Island Treasury Notes" into circulation by paying anyone who did community work, such as, building a clinic or a school. I would have a popular government as I would dispense more social services than I took from the people in taxation.

Now imagine you are stranded on an island with a New York or London banker. He would set up a private bank and create money which he would loan to you. Notice he is not loaning you anyone's savings. He is functioning as a counterfeiter. He is using loan agreements to pass counterfeit money. And he is requiring you to pay interest on his forgeries. This form of banking is nothing more than a theft as it will eventually through monetary creation, interest payments, inflation and depression transfer all wealth from those who produce wealth to those who print the currency.

Is that short enough for you?

Darwyn (1601 D)
11 Nov 10 UTC
I'll even break it down for you...

PROSPEROUS
Imagine it is in the early 19th century and we are shipwrecked on an island far from the shipping lanes with no immediate chance of rescue. I would open a bank. I would find an artist to help me create one thousand one dollar bills. I would spend these "Island Treasury Notes" into circulation by paying anyone who did community work, such as, building a clinic or a school. I would have a popular government as I would dispense more social services than I took from the people in taxation.

ENSLAVEMENT
Imagine it is in the early 19th century and we are shipwrecked on an island far from the shipping lanes with no immediate chance of rescue. I would open a bank. I would find an artist to help me create one thousand one dollar bills. I would spend these "Island Treasury Notes" into circulation by paying anyone who did community work, such as, building a clinic or a school. I would have a popular government as I would dispense more social services than I took from the people in taxation.

Which is better? Which one would you choose?
Darwyn (1601 D)
11 Nov 10 UTC
oh dammit, lets try again...

PROSPEROUS
Imagine it is in the early 19th century and we are shipwrecked on an island far from the shipping lanes with no immediate chance of rescue. I would open a bank. I would find an artist to help me create one thousand one dollar bills. I would spend these "Island Treasury Notes" into circulation by paying anyone who did community work, such as, building a clinic or a school. I would have a popular government as I would dispense more social services than I took from the people in taxation.

ENSLAVEMENT
Now imagine you are stranded on an island with a New York or London banker. He would set up a private bank and create money which he would loan to you. Notice he is not loaning you anyone's savings. He is functioning as a counterfeiter. He is using loan agreements to pass counterfeit money. And he is requiring you to pay interest on his forgeries. This form of banking is nothing more than a theft as it will eventually through monetary creation, interest payments, inflation and depression transfer all wealth from those who produce wealth to those who print the currency.

Which is better? Which one would you choose?
--------------------

So would you rather "dispense more social services than I took from the people in taxation."

OR

"through monetary creation, interest payments, inflation and depression transfer all wealth from those who produce wealth to those who print the currency."

which is it?
Darwyn (1601 D)
11 Nov 10 UTC
stratagos, the consequences of reverting back to what is right and prosperous FAR EXCEEDS any sort of shifting of the chains that bind you.

It starting to sound like freedom makes you squeamish. That is upsetting.
stratagos (3269 D(S))
11 Nov 10 UTC
"stratagos, the consequences of reverting back to what is right and prosperous FAR EXCEEDS any sort of shifting of the chains that bind you."

PROVE IT.

That's all I'm asking. Don't parrot whatever buzzwords you're reading somewhere on the internet, *show* how your policy will work. You haven't, and I'm starting to think you *can't*.

You can't even give me an example of how you'd balance the damn budget if your magical money system was instantaneously enacted tomorrow and there were zero consequences.

I don't *care* about your elegant theoretical concepts, I care about the *real freaking world*, and in the *real freaking world*, actions have consequences. Consequences you are flatly *refusing to discuss*.

So which of us is more "squeamish" - someone who doesn't feel like discussing theory and plainly states it, or someone who is unwilling to accept his theoretical model may not be an unending panacea of butterflies shooting out everyone's ass, but may have *real world effects* that don't just hit the evil banker people.

I cede you victory in the thread. I am just getting angry - I don't know if I'm simply unable to express myself or if you're so bound and determined to prove that you're right that you ignore anything that doesn't conform to your worldview.

In either case, you go wild with your revolution. Let me know how it all works out. In the meantime, I'll continue paying down my debt and watching the retailers whine that consumer spending isn't where they want it to be.
Darwyn (1601 D)
11 Nov 10 UTC
This isn't a theoretical model. There are historical examples everywhere. I've already given them had you read it, including the United States in its inception and after Jackson ended the 2nd Bank of the United States' charter.

In fact, Hitler did this as well to recover from the crushing debt from WWI. He made Germany prosperous again which resulted in him being voted 1938's Time Man of the Year...simply by issuing currency interest free.

I'm not at liberty to write a dissertation on it, but you are free to check it out. When a country issues its own currency interest free, it prospers. When a central bank gets involved, you need only look around you to see what it does.

I'm not necessarily trying to be "right" or to "win"...I wanted to show you as best I could the reasons we are in our present mess because you had mocked people whining about the economy. The fact is that they have every reason to whine and to be very angry about it and it has nothing to do with you or I paying or not paying our debts, cutting benefits or balancing a budget that is purposefully kept in the red. As I've shown, it points back to the central bank. All of this you see around you? It was by design.

It's fine and honorable to work within the system. But only, in my opinion, if that system isn't designed to enslave you. So the real world effects of making this change, from enslavement to prosperity (as it was set up to be) is a small price to pay for the freedom from the financial chains of central banks that seem to STILL have a hold on you.

Freedom in the hearts of patriots trumps all.
stratagos (3269 D(S))
11 Nov 10 UTC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard#Disadvantages

And I'll leave this discussion with that.

Page 2 of 4
FirstPreviousNextLast
 

108 replies
baumhaeuer (245 D)
05 Nov 10 UTC
Abgemacht!
Quantum mechanics question: could you explain to me "quantum suicide" in a little detail? You mentioned it a while back, and the assumption seemed to be that once an observer is observing, he will always do so in his own set of universes. Does that mean (according to the theory) there will always be some universes out there, for each observer, where a particular observer has never died?
47 replies
Open
Darwyn (1601 D)
09 Nov 10 UTC
TGM Champions' Trophy Game WINNER
The Champions Trophy is the showcase tournament of the Diplomacy calendar, involving just seven players, chosen on the basis of performance in competitive diplomacy over the previous year. It will include the champion from last year, the winners from the previous two league seasons, the winner and runner-up from The Masters', and the two highest placed players in the GFDT.
19 replies
Open
gomey (781 D)
12 Nov 10 UTC
Change username?
Hi there,
I was wondering if there were some way I can change my username?
Any ideas?
3 replies
Open
newkid11 (211 D)
12 Nov 10 UTC
How about a waiting list for members wishing to join "live" games
Would it be possible to have a statistics list for those who are logged on who are for example waiting for a live gunboat game. Too many times I have set up a new game but only to fail because I could not get to the required 7 people.

3 replies
Open
Page 675 of 1419
FirstPreviousNextLast
Back to top