Fiction Book - Need Ideas - What if the Fed never came into being?

[specsaregood]

War On Drugs must be pretty profitable too.
Trend is steady increase since the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

and that graphs doesn't even include the millions that have a police record and had their life ruined, many of whom can't vote, own guns, etc...

smells like more freedom to me.

 

[Travlyr]

Yep. That's freedom. The Feds free the hell out of people. The rate that graph is going up it won't be long until they have all the bad guys in jail

 

[onlyrp]

and that graphs doesn't even include the millions that have a police record and had their life ruined, many of whom can't vote, own guns, etc...

smells like more freedom to me.

What percentage of people is that, what felonies does it take to lose your right to vote, or right to own guns, was it better in 1906?

 

[onlyrp]

Yep. That's freedom. The Feds free the hell out of people. The rate that graph is going up it won't be long until they have all the bad guys in jail

I see, the fact we have too many prisons is the feds' fault too, yep, no scapegoating here.

 

[onlyrp]

Indeed, War Is A Racket! Funded by counterfeiters. That is well known.

I'm not looking for a scapegoat for war crimes. I know who is responsible.
Paul Warburg funding America in World War I. Max Warburg funding Germany.

George Herbert Walker And Prescott Bush
Funded And Directed The Military Industrial Complex
Behind Adolf Hitler And The Nazi Revolution.

So you're complaining that they funded 2 wars American won. Might be better if they only funded our enemies.

It certainly doesn't hurt. Especially before the Federal Reserve System confiscated it. Evidently the Federal Reserve agrees or they wouldn't have confiscated it.

Doesn't hurt, but doesn't equate, I got it.

That is nonsense. The Federal Reserve, if anything, prevented people from enjoying cell phones, reliable cars, high speed internet rather than promoted it.

So the fact you're not Donald Trump is their fault. There's gotta be no room for personal responsibility in your book when it comes to not having.

Consolidating, regulating, and controlling society discourages innovation. Industrial hemp is a far superior crop that, when legalized, will make stronger and lighter automobile panels, insulated reinforced concrete blocks, superior wall panels, and hundreds of other high quality products superior to petroleum based products. Hemp was made illegal for the progressive era.

So point to a country that didn't have a central bank destroying their economy, and therefore did all the things you're dreaming of.

No. I define a prosperous society as peaceful, well fed, with homeless on the streets only by choice.

I don't know what you mean by peaceful, but well fed and homeless only by choice, America is pretty much just that today. I can smell your socialist hatred for responsibility, so you think Americans who are homeless and starving have no responsibility themselves.

650 million acres of Federal land in the west waiting to be homesteaded.

How much of that was privately owned in 1906, and how many people want to buy land but can't find it?

Automation is good for production. More time off and less work.

War economy does not promote liberty, peace, or prosperity.

War economy promotes all of those if you win. And it helps if you fight outside of your own country too.

They would be in better shape than they were in 1980.

You mean 1980 is better than 1906? Or 1980 is better than today?
Is today worse than 1906? Just checking

That's dumb. The throw away society also came with the Federal Reserve. Keynesian economics is based on the broken window fallacy.

I understand the broken window fallacy, which is why I don't define wealth and prosperity by employment (nor do you, luckily). What do you mean by "throw away society"? A society of abundance where people throw away things even if not broken? Or were you just referring to my saying that throwing away technology for the sake of production and employment is stupid (because it is)?

 

[Travlyr]

I see, the fact we have too many prisons is the feds' fault too, yep, no scapegoating here.

You don't seem to understand how pervasive unsound currency is. Fiat currency funds socialist programs, medical, military, and prison industrial complexes, the police state, and it grows the disparity of wealth favoring the elite ruling class. If you are a part of that elite ruling class, then your wealth is fairly well protected until the real power brokers throw you under the bus. If you are not part of the elite ruling class, then they may take if faster than you think unless you are prepared. They already took the wealth from the Argentineans. They are taking from the Greeks now. Until it hits people squarely in the pocketbook many people remain in denial. Counterfeiting pays big bucks. Real Big Bucks.

 

[specsaregood]

What percentage of people is that, what felonies does it take to lose your right to vote, or right to own guns, was it better in 1906?

dunno, but I do know our population growth does not mirror that graph.

 

[onlyrp]

You don't seem to understand how pervasive unsound currency is. Fiat currency funds socialist programs, medical, military, and prison industrial complexes, the police state, and it grows the disparity of wealth favoring the elite ruling class. If you are a part of that elite ruling class, then your wealth is fairly well protected until the real power brokers throw you under the bus. If you are not part of the elite ruling class, then they may take if faster than you think unless you are prepared. They already took the wealth from the Argentineans. They are taking from the Greeks now. Until it hits people squarely in the pocketbook many people remain in denial. Counterfeiting pays big bucks. Real Big Bucks.

Looks like you know their plan much like they do, so you're going to be fine.

By the way, from the videos of Argentina and Greece, they both look better fed and less homeless than your 1906 video.

I'm sure you were able to see how under funded and non existent the police state, prisons, war on drugs and medical industrial complex were from that video.

 

[Domalais]

I don't think anybody here is saying anything of the kind. But if that's the way you perceive it, you're entitled to that. You sure picked a funny place to engage in Keynesian/Monetarist fearmongering though.

You say the thread is all for fun, and I make a joke to get it back on topic, and now it's srs bzns time?

 

[Travlyr]

Looks like you know their plan much like they do, so you're going to be fine.
I don't know if it is planned or unplanned but it is well known by researchers that the fiat money scheme comes to an end. Look at virtually any graph and it is easy to see that as the fiat money scheme comes to its logical conclusion the graphs reach for the sky. One example is the debt. Take a look at the debt.

By the way, from the videos of Argentina and Greece, they both look better fed and less homeless than your 1906 video.

I'm sure you were able to see how under funded and non existent the police state, prisons, war on drugs and medical industrial complex were from that video.

Really? Obviously you didn't bother to watch the videos because I didn't post a video about Greece. And the people of Argentina went back to barter after they nearly starved from being locked out of access to their money by Citibank, BOA, and others. Note the date. October 2001. The police were riding horses in the streets beating people down. Watch the whole video to learn how the IMF stole their wealth. It is actually smart to watch a video before you comment on its content. Otherwise you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

Why are you stuck on the 1906 video? Did you bother watching that one either? Because you miss the point of that one too. It was not so much the prosperity that was shown in the video, which there was plenty, but it was the freedom of movement that they enjoyed. Freedom to travel. Few signs, no enforced rules to obey, no TSA, no people telling others what to do. It was just one example of people mingling with each other and going about their daily business. The reason I posted that video is because it was made before the Federal Reserve took over. That is consistent with the OP's request.

Now as far as liberty, peace, and prosperity in the 19th century, before the Federal Reserve coup of the American government, people enjoyed the fruits of their labor in ways that evidently you never learned. Research is your friend. My family came to America in the 16th century escaping tyrannical governments in Europe. They found in America a land of opportunity. Certainly, I make no claim that early America was equitable for all, but for free people, America offered peace and prosperity for many because the rule of law was a representative republic, sound money was generally respected, and, for the most part, American soldiers were not off fighting in foreign wars. It was NOT perfect by any means. I never made that claim. But, for most people, it was much better than living in tyranny from the ruler's debasement of currency abroad.

The Federal Reserve's System of counterfeiting theft and control changed all that. Now some people prosper handsomely at the expense of others, war economies destroy peace and infrastructure, and the police have constant surveillance to watch our every move.

I prefer liberty, peace, and prosperity as delivered by adhering to the rule of law rather than the Fed's oligarchy of tyranny, democide, and poverty.

 

[onlyrp]

Why are you stuck on the 1906 video? Did you bother watching that one either? Because you miss the point of that one too. It was not so much the prosperity that was shown in the video, which there was plenty, but it was the freedom of movement that they enjoyed.

I'm stuck on the only piece of "evidence" you present. It wasn't about prosperity once I call you out. Freedom of movement because there was a lower population, DUH. That's exactly what my video showed. Find any country with similar population and I can guarantee they too have freedom of movement (in fact, many places in the US are like that too). Your definition of "freedom" is , there's not enough people around so it's OK for everybody to walk as they please, and those who can't afford cars or horses can walk.

 

[onlyrp]

The reason I posted that video is because it was made before the Federal Reserve took over. That is consistent with the OP's request.

And you won't tell me you prefer to live in that time compared to now, because you CAN, and you KNOW it's not preferable. Which is why you ignore the fact I posted a video of a country without a federal reserve and shows equally freedom of movement you claim is so important.

Now as far as liberty, peace, and prosperity in the 19th century, before the Federal Reserve coup of the American government, people enjoyed the fruits of their labor in ways that evidently you never learned.

Of course, just ask any slave, woman or child.

Research is your friend.

No, watching youtube and then denying contradictory videos is your friend.

My family came to America in the 16th century escaping tyrannical governments in Europe.

In the 1500s?

They found in America a land of opportunity.

Because nobody was here but savages. That's exactly how we find Iraq and Iran today. You're glorifying theft of land and resources when YOU are on the taking side.

Certainly, I make no claim that early America was equitable for all, but for free people, America offered peace and prosperity for many because the rule of law was a representative republic, sound money was generally respected, and, for the most part, American soldiers were not off fighting in foreign wars. It was NOT perfect by any means. I never made that claim. But, for most people, it was much better than living in tyranny from the ruler's debasement of currency abroad.

In other words, America was better for the elites and the free back then, and today more people are free at the expense of them. So if you were black, female or otherwise poor, you might actually prefer today's life to back then. It's nice to call you out on bullshit claim and have you admit liberty was not "everywhere" as you previous say.

The Federal Reserve's System of counterfeiting theft and control changed all that. Now some people prosper handsomely at the expense of others, war economies destroy peace and infrastructure, and the police have constant surveillance to watch our every move.

Nobody every prospered at the expense of others in 19th century, because slaves were justly compensated and voluntarily took on their jobs, we only call them slaves because they're black.

I prefer liberty, peace, and prosperity as delivered by adhering to the rule of law rather than the Fed's oligarchy of tyranny, democide, and poverty.

Which is why every country without a federal reserve must be exactly all of the above, right? (You won't answer this question because it destroys your fantasy)

 

[Travlyr]

I'm stuck on the only piece of "evidence" you present. It wasn't about prosperity once I call you out.

Baloney. That is just ignorant. Go back to page 1 and look for yourself. The video title I posted is "Liberty would be enjoyed everywhere." Sure that was a little over the top, but reasonable people would easily determine that it was a metaphor.

The Alexis de Tocqueville Tour - Exploring Democracy in America - 1830's was where the reference to prosperity was indicated.
Prosperity = "Equality would be the order of the day based on effort rather than privilege."

So, you see, it has nothing to do with your idiotic response. Some of us saw an opportunity to inspire the OP to do more research and write the book. Your objective was to attack. Sad.

Freedom of movement because there was a lower population, DUH.

Duh uh? Have you traveled across America? Have you ever left the city? People prior to the Federal Reserve's tyranny were not stopped randomly to have their papers and vehicles searched by police. Just a little bit of research shows that the State Police pretty much came onto the scene about the time gold was confiscated by the oligarchy. Freedom of movement before that was not controlled by tyrants.

That's exactly what my video showed.

Yes, indeed, the people in your video did demonstrate liberty and they appeared to be rather happy and at peace. Prosperity is another factor that they did not seem to possess in great quantities, but that was not the point of the 1906 video I posted. Liberty was the primary focus of the San Francisco video.

Find any country with similar population and I can guarantee they too have freedom of movement (in fact, many places in the US are like that too).

Right, as long as they pay and obey.

Unless you were Patricia Cook and others like her who met the same fate. Unless you make an improper U-turn. Unless you go too fast for the tyrants. Unless you don't make a complete stop at a Stop sign. Unless the camera finds you suspicious.

Your definition of "freedom" is , there's not enough people around so it's OK for everybody to walk as they please, and those who can't afford cars or horses can walk.

My definition of freedom is spelled out in the 'Bill of Rights." Article IV guarantees freedom of movement.
Your idea of freedom is not freedom.

Liberty is not Tyranny.

Now, explain how your beloved Federal Reserve counterfeiters freed the slaves and won women's rights for them.

Debasement of currency around the world has always been tyrannical.

 

[Travlyr]

And you won't tell me you prefer to live in that time compared to now, because you CAN, and you KNOW it's not preferable. Which is why you ignore the fact I posted a video of a country without a federal reserve and shows equally freedom of movement you claim is so important.



Of course, just ask any slave, woman or child.



No, watching youtube and then denying contradictory videos is your friend.



In the 1500s?



Because nobody was here but savages. That's exactly how we find Iraq and Iran today. You're glorifying theft of land and resources when YOU are on the taking side.



In other words, America was better for the elites and the free back then, and today more people are free at the expense of them. So if you were black, female or otherwise poor, you might actually prefer today's life to back then. It's nice to call you out on bullshit claim and have you admit liberty was not "everywhere" as you previous say.



Nobody every prospered at the expense of others in 19th century, because slaves were justly compensated and voluntarily took on their jobs, we only call them slaves because they're black.



Which is why every country without a federal reserve must be exactly all of the above, right? (You won't answer this question because it destroys your fantasy)

Product of the public school system.

 

[Travlyr]

And you won't tell me you prefer to live in that time compared to now, because you CAN, and you KNOW it's not preferable. Which is why you ignore the fact I posted a video of a country without a federal reserve and shows equally freedom of movement you claim is so important.

Right. Central banks create tyrants. The freedom of movement is restricted by tyrants.

Of course, just ask any slave, woman or child.

We don't have slaves anymore. Slavery was abolished a long time ago. The Federal Reserve System did not solve that issue.

No, watching youtube and then denying contradictory videos is your friend.

I just don't like wasting my time on nonsense. Your attack on my initial post to the OP was nonsense. If you don't agree, then say that but to deny the liberty that many Americans have enjoyed prior to the central bank's control proves a lack of understanding history.

In the 1500s?

Yes, that would be the 16th century.

Because nobody was here but savages.

I doubt that they were all savages like your government books taught.

That's exactly how we find Iraq and Iran today. You're glorifying theft of land and resources when YOU are on the taking side.

Indeed, the Bank of England had a lot to do with the expansion of the British Empire, but we broke those chains in 18th century and then they took control again in 1913. Iraq and Iran are similar, but I denounce the tyrants anyway.

In other words, America was better for the elites and the free back then, and today more people are free at the expense of them. So if you were black, female or otherwise poor, you might actually prefer today's life to back then. It's nice to call you out on bullshit claim and have you admit liberty was not "everywhere" as you previous say.

Again, reasonable people know that "liberty was everywhere" was a metaphor. Why are you being unreasonable?

Technology was a lot different in the past. The Federal Reserve System is not responsible for technological advances we have today. More often than not they have stood in the way.

Nobody every prospered at the expense of others in 19th century, because slaves were justly compensated and voluntarily took on their jobs, we only call them slaves because they're black.

Slavery was world wide. Not all slaves were black. All countries except America ended slavery without war.

Which is why every country without a federal reserve must be exactly all of the above, right?

Here is your answer! No. It is a stupid assumption! It is too stupid of an assumption for me to waste my time elaborating.

(You won't answer this question because it destroys your fantasy)

Fantasy? I've read what sound money brought to Americans prior to gold confiscation. It is not a fantasy, it's a fact. Ron Paul talks about it all the time. It is amazing you call yourself a Ron Paul supporter. You know nothing about his philosophy.


"Romney & Gingrich Just Woudn't Get This." Neither will 'onlyrp'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=q3SOlXxUBLk

 

[onlyrp]

Baloney. That is just ignorant. Go back to page 1 and look for yourself. The video title I posted is "Liberty would be enjoyed everywhere." Sure that was a little over the top, but reasonable people would easily determine that it was a metaphor.

It wasn't a little over the top, it was baseless and ignorant, if not completely dishonest. It wasn't a metaphor, it was an assertion I made you retract.

The Alexis de Tocqueville Tour - Exploring Democracy in America - 1830's was where the reference to prosperity was indicated.
Prosperity = "Equality would be the order of the day based on effort rather than privilege."

Is property a privilege? Did you inherit property that was not based on effort?

So, you see, it has nothing to do with your idiotic response. Some of us saw an opportunity to inspire the OP to do more research and write the book. Your objective was to attack. Sad.

My objective is to debunk your lies that life was better in 1906, which you have since backed out from.

Duh uh? Have you traveled across America? Have you ever left the city? People prior to the Federal Reserve's tyranny were not stopped randomly to have their papers and vehicles searched by police.

YAY, you ignored my point again, BECAUSE POPULATION WAS SMALLER. Immigrants were not easily at the borders and airports because travel was less accessible. People walked more because not all people had cars. (According to you, having less cars is prosperity).

Just a little bit of research shows that the State Police pretty much came onto the scene about the time gold was confiscated by the oligarchy. Freedom of movement before that was not controlled by tyrants.

Yeah, we all hate state police, we prefer federal police.

Yes, indeed, the people in your video did demonstrate liberty and they appeared to be rather happy and at peace. Prosperity is another factor that they did not seem to possess in great quantities

Why not, how are you able to see they don't have prosperity from the video, that which you can see from your 1906 video.

, but that was not the point of the 1906 video I posted. Liberty was the primary focus of the San Francisco video.

Whatever I point out about you, your posting, your idiotic video, is not the point after I point it out.

Right, as long as they pay and obey.

Unless you were Patricia Cook and others like her who met the same fate. Unless you make an improper U-turn. Unless you go too fast for the tyrants. Unless you don't make a complete stop at a Stop sign. Unless the camera finds you suspicious.

There's only improper u turns and speed limits where there's enough people to warrant safety regulations. I agree with you complete stops is a bit ridiculous.

My definition of freedom is spelled out in the 'Bill of Rights." Article IV guarantees freedom of movement.
Your idea of freedom is not freedom.

The Constitution was written when cars were not invented and accessible to every person, and when government could catch on to citizens on a same of similar vehicle, now you're unhappy that the government can use technology (whether cars or cameras) to catch up with the citizens. People like you give a lot of credit to those who think libertarians and constitutionalists just want to advocate for criminals, drunk drivers and racists. You've pretty much admitted you don't care about women and blacks' right to vote as an important equality and freedom, and you care more about your freedom to drive without speed limits. Then you blame everything on the Federal Reserve and expect somebody to attitribute all the good things to them as if we made any claim of it.

Liberty is not Tyranny.

Now, explain how your beloved Federal Reserve counterfeiters freed the slaves and won women's rights for them.

Debasement of currency around the world has always been tyrannical.

I never said Federal Reserve free slaves or won women's rights, but glad you agree that was lacking in 1906. Apparently you believe those rights aren't important as being free from federal reserve, which is why you disregard them (something tells me you are neither black nor female). If debasement of currency is tyrannical, then contraction of credit must be freedom. Deflation and depreciation of housing should be encouraged. Unemployment should be a good thing!

 

[onlyrp]

Here is your answer! No. It is a stupid assumption! It is too stupid of an assumption for me to waste my time elaborating.

If it's a stupid assumption, it's a stupid scapegoat to blame the Federal reserve!

 

[onlyrp]

Slavery was world wide. Not all slaves were black. All countries except America ended slavery without war.

so you mean you admit people lived and prospered at the expense of others in the 19th century? LOL.

 

[Travlyr]

It wasn't a little over the top, it was baseless and ignorant, if not completely dishonest. It wasn't a metaphor, it was an assertion I made you retract.



Is property a privilege? Did you inherit property that was not based on effort?



My objective is to debunk your lies that life was better in 1906, which you have since backed out from.



YAY, you ignored my point again, BECAUSE POPULATION WAS SMALLER. Immigrants were not easily at the borders and airports because travel was less accessible. People walked more because not all people had cars. (According to you, having less cars is prosperity).



Yeah, we all hate state police, we prefer federal police.



Why not, how are you able to see they don't have prosperity from the video, that which you can see from your 1906 video.



Whatever I point out about you, your posting, your idiotic video, is not the point after I point it out.



There's only improper u turns and speed limits where there's enough people to warrant safety regulations. I agree with you complete stops is a bit ridiculous.



The Constitution was written when cars were not invented and accessible to every person, and when government could catch on to citizens on a same of similar vehicle, now you're unhappy that the government can use technology (whether cars or cameras) to catch up with the citizens. People like you give a lot of credit to those who think libertarians and constitutionalists just want to advocate for criminals, drunk drivers and racists. You've pretty much admitted you don't care about women and blacks' right to vote as an important equality and freedom, and you care more about your freedom to drive without speed limits. Then you blame everything on the Federal Reserve and expect somebody to attitribute all the good things to them as if we made any claim of it.



I never said Federal Reserve free slaves or won women's rights, but glad you agree that was lacking in 1906. Apparently you believe those rights aren't important as being free from federal reserve, which is why you disregard them (something tells me you are neither black nor female). If debasement of currency is tyrannical, then contraction of credit must be freedom. Deflation and depreciation of housing should be encouraged. Unemployment should be a good thing!

Quoted for Ignorance. Ignorance is evidently your strength.

 

[onlyrp]

Quoted for Ignorance. Ignorance is evidently your strength.

anybody who doesn't agree with you, and points out your mistakes, lies and forces you to admit facts, is "ignorant". Keep saving face brother.

Whenever I point out your holes, you say "that's not the point!!" You scapegoat the federal reserve for anything that's wrong with your life, then when asked whether any country without them is better, you call that "stupid". When somebody points out what freedoms were not available prior to 1906, or 1913, you then ask me to explain how your boogeyman fixed it, as if I ever claimed your boogeyman was a force for good.

Just because I don't agree the federal reserve is responsible for cancer and your dog's death, doesn't mean I believe they are the saints who will cure AIDS. And you call ME ignorant?