What point? The only valid point you made is lack of ownership percentages. The Congressional Banking graph tells us the BIGGEST BANKING dynasties in Europe have their hands squarely in Fed ownership. And since we dont know ownership %'s, its really a non issue since we can trust the Rothschilds and Warburgs to play nice. The same International Bankers who finance wars between nations to make money. YEA RIGHT! Run along and play with your doggie now.
Now I can see why you're duped so easy. You dont know which way is up. Stick to what you know. Take an intro Macro and Mirco course (Keynesian) and you'll discover why the above is just smokescreen for sheep like you.
I've already answered that question directly (to you) in another thread. You dont know shit about economics, Haroki. Your ignorance is as plain as day. The blah blah blah is where the trillion dollars comes from. Read up. Thats the answer to your question you dont want to hear.
haha.. if banking was that simple.. banks can create money (out of nothing), but that doesn't mean it's free for them. ever looked at a bank balance sheet or p&l statement?
haroki, you ain't gonna git anywhere with these folks. They have no idea of the history of money, they have no clue as to what the Fed does, their conception of the gold standard is spun out of whole cloth (and I actually like the gold standard, but these gits just give it the bad name it has with the general public, which is fine since they're really just using it as a stalking horse for their other pet peeves, which are in fact far more important for them), and they don't want to know the actual facts about any of this, because the facts would just screw up their carefully crafted fantasies. OTOH, if you're being entertained, carry on. Me, I just find them tiresome bores, and I've only been here for a half year.
You obviously don't belong on a trading board - company %age ownership is usually available for the major players, and in fact is mandated by the SEC for the banks ------ The Securities and Exchange Commission requires that firms whose stock is traded publicly report their major stockholders each year. The reports identify all institutional shareholders (primarily, firms owning stock in other companies), all company officials who own shares in their firm, and any individual or institution owning more than 5% of the firmâs stock. These reports show that only one of the N.Y. Fedâs current largest shareholders, Citicorp, has any major foreign stockholders. As of January 1996, Price Alwaleed Bin Talad of Saudi Arabia owned 8.9% of Citicorp stock.
True. I do find it somewhat amusing - it gives me something to do with my psychology minor. Very interesting guys. Probably the funniest of all is the way they follow the playbook layed out for those in denial here : http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2007/04/paranoia-strikes-deep.html Interestingly enough - I can make notes and make a prediction what their next responses will be, from ad hominem, to outright lying, to changing the focus of their evidence........ and they follow right along, never realizing that they're in incredibly deep denial of real life. It's like this: monetary policies can be very complex to some, and so, to make themselves feel better about not understanding it, there comes a psychological need to create bogeymen to blame their own inadequacies on. This fills the basic psychological need for closure with difficult issues, which ironically, they'll never get using these outlandish conspiracy theories, because they can never be proven or truly disproven due to the sheer complexities involved in them......... The same can be said of 9/11, JFK's assassaination, and a myriad of other issues. They simply can't accept the simple answer for such a complex and huge event like yes, 19 arabs with boxcutters took over some planes and flew them into buildings. Or like, yes, a lone kook with an old gun managed to get in a head shot on our President. They simply don't have the mental ability to see the truth in some things....
You read up Einstein----- A great deal of economic literature concerns the question of what causes inflation and what effect it has. A small amount of inflation is often viewed as having a positive effect on the economy. One reason for this is that it is difficult to renegotiate some prices, and particularly wages, downwards, so that with generally increasing prices it is easier for relative prices to adjust. Many prices are "sticky downward" and tend to creep upward, so that efforts to attain a zero inflation rate (a constant price level) punish other sectors with falling prices, profits, and employment. Efforts to attain complete price stability can also lead to deflation, which is generally viewed as a negative outcome because of the significant downward adjustments in wages and output that are associated with it. Keynes is old school - no one follows his theories much anymore.... Monetarism One of the most influential schools of economic thinking rests on the quantity theory of money, devised by Milton Friedman, the "high priest" of monetarism. This way of thinking about inflation was suddenly given credence once more by the stagflation of the 1970s. Monetarists assert that empirical study of monetary history shows that "inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon." Modern mainstream central banking practice still adheres closely to this concept
Oops, I gave the wrong link... http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2006/04/strategies-for-dealing-with-denial.html