The Founding Fathers, The Economy And The Fed!

They built a pretty good country.
Some say the best in history.
Millions flocked to the shores and made better lives for themselves.

But that's gone now.
There's no country left for you to take over.
What's left, you can have.

 

Oh no doubt the US was at least as culpable if not more so. Which still doesn't excuse Russia's meddling in other country's affairs for its own benefit anymore than ours can be excused. And that Stalin was %100 psychopath, too. The record is pretty clear on him. Not that I have much higher an opinion of Reagan or Nixon.

I just found this today:

http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777/amgov/secession.html

It's the words of the secessionists.

One reason for seceding laid out by Mississippi:

"It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion."

Apparently at least one author of this document thought slavery could not continue without the ability to expand, though it is unclear whether he meant because of political power or monetary loss.

But I found this, which is a different reason the South wanted new states to be slave states yet still had to do with the economics of expansion:


http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/civilwar/about.htm


"In national politics, Southerners chiefly sought protection and enlargement of the interests represented by the cotton-slavery system. Expansion was considered a necessity because the wastefulness of cultivating a single crop, cotton, rapidly exhausted the soil, increasing the need for new fertile lands..."

So they wanted to expand to grow more cotton on new soil, using slaves for labor.


I can't find the one quote I saw while skimming articles that outright said the South's inability to sell slaves to Western states would have quickened the demise of slavery. Might not have been a very reliable article, either.


Edit: Okay, I finally found something substantial.

http://history.ncsu.edu/projects/cwnc/items/show/341

"As long as new land was available in the West, slaveholders could sell their extra slaves to new plantations in the territories. But as the “Old Southwest” — Alabama, Mississippi, and Arkansas — started to fill up, slaveholders needed new territory. In the 1840s, the United States annexed Texas and fought a war with Mexico — in large part, to gain more territory for slavery."

From what I understand of the whole article, it wasn't just southerners eager to sell slaves. Northerner slave owners had earlier sold slaves south for the same reason.

 

Well yes the southern Democrats who argued against the Union's control of the southern states were for the most part representing the southern aristocracy because that was where their financial support was and yes the southern planters did profit a great deal from the free labor of slavery but the southerners themselves knew that the days of slavery were numbered and there is no way that the war could have ever gotten off the ground if slavery was all that it was about.
The real issue was a usurping government in Washington that was dictating it's will upon the states much as King George III had done not too long before. You have to remember that a great deal of the revolutionary war was fought in the south and the culture there was conditioned by it to rebel against any tyranny or government oppression whatsoever. When the Union government began pressing, the natural effect was resistance from the southern states. Heck to this day many southerners don't trust government and will always try to live by their own rules. The most hard headed patriots in the world are southern Americans and they are still heavily armed waiting for the next attack on their way of life. They are a thorn in the side of those who wish to change them and a great ally in the event of a war for rights!

 

Direct democracy huh? Why do you think it is good to pick on minorities? Or will your majority not do that? Direct democracy sucks.

- - - Updated - - -

If the majority said that they want to take all you own would you be cool with that? Would it be "only yourself to blame"?

 

It was t dying in the south. They seceded because Lincoln was an abolitionist. He did free the slaves, he was instrumental in the passage of the 13th.

- - - Updated - - -

Did you really compare Reagan with Stalin?

 

You mean the same Founders that risked all of their wealth and property in order to secure freedom for our country?

I don't think so. Your post sounds like leftist revisionism.

 

That's not my take at all. Lincoln's anti-slavery stance was merely a happy coincidence. The Emancipation didn't actually free any slaves; there were also slave states in the North.

Andrew Jackson got the ball rolling on Southern Secession with the Taxation of Abominations. Lincoln merely kept it rolling.

That's what I was going to say as well - and unfavorably at that!

 

That is revisionist though. The Republican party founded by Fremont was a very real threat to slavery, the South knew it and seceded once they got power. They seceded to keep their slavery system.

Some people make crazy comparisons don't they? Reagan was a man of peace who should have won the Nobel prize five times before Obama or Carter won one. But the Nobel prize committee is a political body, that has been run by the socialists- poorly-for many years. They are losing elections in Sweden though, so we may see some changes there.

 

the aldrich plan, jp morgan took part in, was rejected by congress

the glass-owen bill was written by congress with input from the president

it is what was passed by congress and became known as the federal reserve act

the federal reserve act took control of the financial system, away from the money trust, in the usa

and put it in the hands of a publicly controlled central bank

 

PUBLICLY CONTROLLED?!? We don't elect the people who run the FED, The Federal Reserve Bank is a cartel that is no more federal than Federal Express and we have no say in what they do, though what they do has everything to do with the state of our economy!!! In what way is the FED "publicly controlled"?!?
The book "The Creature From Jekyll Island" which explains in detail about the origins and workings of the Federal Reserve should be REQUIRED reading for every man, woman and child in this country!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dba9OY0QatU

 

that's right, the federal reserve board of governors are all federal employees

i read 'the creature from jekyll island' when it came out

it is a bunch of malarkey from a nutty conspiracy theorist

here's another work produced by g edward griffin, ct huckster:

[video=youtube;Y-ov0MeunBg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-ov0MeunBg[/video]

if you don't want watch 'the discovery of noah's ark' for free on youtube

no problem, you can go to griffin's website and buy the dvd for $19.50

http://www.realityzone.com/disofnoahark.html

 

Reagan may have been a doddering old geezer, who simply took the credit when the economy passed through a naturally occurring prosperity cycle...and Nixon may have made most of his mistakes because of his inferiority complex...but they were grounded by a mostly sane American govenrment and press. Stalin was let loose on a defensless press, military, and populus. Not sure I find the comparison apt.

You want to see some era appropriate racist crap from back then?....try looking at the southern justifications for succession for the states from Mississippi, Texas, South Carolina, and Georgia. Especially the Texas drivel...they go on about natural white superiority in a manner that made me cringe.

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

 

It was a modified version of what Aldrich and Morgan had originally proposed. Morgan's influence over the creation of the federal reserve cannot be ignored.

Took control away from the money trust? You must be joking. Since 1913, we've had two major financial recessions caused by the greed of the money trust, one in 1929 and one in 2008. Moreover, the banking sector has only become more consolidated and the scale of their operations have only increased since 1913. In 2008, the money trust was bailed out with both tax dollars and with quantitative easing. Corporate profits and income inequality have continued to increase. You would have to be living in a fantasy world to believe the financial system isn't still controlled by the money trust that helped push through the federal reserve system in 1913. If anything, they have only become bigger and richer since then.

 

The financial sector is controlled largely by a small group of old money banking institutions that receive trillions in preferential loans from the central bank:



The money trust is doing better than ever.

 

morgan wanted private bankers to be in control of central bank operations

the polar opposite of that is what was passed by congress

before the fed, the money trust was running the significant credit markets in the usa

after the fed, money was made available to banks other than those controlled by the money trust

the history is well explained in 'historical beginnings: the federal reserve', see chapter 2, 20th century reforms

it doesn't exist anymore

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_trust

 

The Fed is not a private interest.

If you're concerned about the Govt pampering the rich, quit voting for Republicans and vote for Democrats instead.

 

Like I said, he didn't get everything he wanted, but he was still a major influence on the process. And the end result was effectively the same, as private banking corporations have benefited from the preferential access to liquidity over the years. In other words, the institution, like so many others in the federal government, has been corrupted by private special interests for their own gain.

Funny, because the board of governors since 1913 reads like a list banking sector insiders and cronies. Of course, this wouldn't be the first time the intentions of politicians were superseded by the corrupting influence of special interest groups, would it?

They still are, or do you think American consumers get loans straight from the central bank?

Pure fantasy. Instead of calling them the "money trust", people just refer to them as the "one percent", and they are doing better than ever. Not only did their greed cause a major recession in 2008, but the federal reserve bailed them out with trillions of dollars in preferential loans, not a single dollar of which went to helping Main Street. I wish I could make a bunch of risky investments and get bailed out by the central bank when they all went south. That would be a pretty sweet deal.

 

The democrats have done absolutely nothing to stop the flow of corporate welfare to the banking cartel since Obama has been President. He reappointed Bush's man, Bernanke, and helped to oversee the Congressional bailouts of the banking cartel that the Bush administration crafted in the final year of his Presidency. Serving the interests of big banks over working class Americans is a bipartisan effort in Washington DC.

 

The five members of the Federal Reserve Board which makes monetary policy:

Janet L. Yellen - No bank employment background
Daniel K. Tarullo - No bank employment background
Sarah Bloom Raskin - No bank employment background
Jeremy C. Stein - No bank employment background
Jerome H. Powell - From 1997 through 2005, Mr. Powell was a partner at The Carlyle Group. An asset management company.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/bios/board/powell.htm

- - - Updated - - -

It is not the Dems who proposed cutting taxes for millionaires, it was the Republicans. It was the not the Republicans who proposed a minimum tax on millionaires, it was the Democrats. It wasn't the Democrats who cut the investment tax rates and estate taxes, it was the Republicans. It wasn't the Republicans who raised investment tax rates and the estate tax, it was the Democrats.

The Republicans are totally beholden to the 1% and do everything in their power to coddle them, cut their taxes and regulations, and help them protect and gain more of the American pie.

If you are really concerned with the Govt pampering the rich, as well you should be, vote Republicans out of power. Then if Democrats don't get the message, vote them out and others in who oppose money power and coddling the richest.

 

Trillions of dollars worth of new liquidity has flown to Wall Street since Obama has been President. Meanwhile, he and his supporters offer up the crumbs and scraps from the banking cartel's table in the form of piddly handouts and welfare, hoping this will distract Americans from the massive theft and fraud being facilitated by the banking cartel and its cronies in Washington.

 

It's mostly flown to the Govt. If you're concerned about the Govt borrowing so much money, write your Republican Tea Party friends and tell them to compromise on a tax increase on the rich.

Or better yet, vote them out of office.

 

Lot of this stuff is just common Federal Reserve myths.

They are in fact part of the government

They have set shares that the member banks get paid no matter how much profit the Fed makes.

The Fed has recently been returning over 95% of their profits back to the Treasury.

If people understood what the Fed really did they would understand why it exist and why it will never go away. But there's just too much complexity for most to understand. It's much easier to understand conspiracy theories about the "evil bankers".

 

You have to look the list of governors in its entirety, which is why I said since 1913. The recent trend has been to appoint academics, but they are all part of the legacy of indoctrination and cronyism that started long before they were even considered for their present positions. That is why it is important to look at the entire history of the central bank instead of just one narrow period of time.

Tax policy has nothing to do with the trillions of dollars of liquidity that has flown to Wall Street since Obama has been president.

Of course the Republicans are beholden to them. Unlike party loyalists, I am able to see that both parties serve the interests of the banking cartel over that of average Americans.

This is just partisan drivel. Both parties facilitated the bailouts and neither side has any plans to stop the flow of welfare to the banking sector. Tax policy is just a canard meant to distract from the trillions in welfare that flows to the cartel from the central bank.

 

Who cares what they were back in 1913? Of the five policy making members of the FRB today, four have absolutely not employment with the private banking industry and only one has had any employment in the industry, and that was not with a mega bank.

It's been that way for quite some time.

It has a lot to do with the 1% getting a larger and larger share of the nation's wealth.

Most of the money flows to the Govt, not banks. Just over a trillion in outstanding loans were issue just after the recession to keep the financial system from collapsing and another great depression, but virtually all was paid back. The biggest loss was AIG, and they aren't even a bank.

.

False equivalency. It is not the Dems who proposed cutting taxes for millionaires, it was the Republicans. It was the not the Republicans who proposed a minimum tax on millionaires, it was the Democrats. It wasn't the Democrats who cut the investment tax rates and estate taxes, it was the Republicans. It wasn't the Republicans who raised investment tax rates and the estate tax, it was the Democrats.

 

Okay maybe you'll believe other sources!
http://www.themoneymasters.com/faqs/
https://archive.org/details/10ThingsThatEveryAmericanShouldKnowAboutThefederalReserve