OLD THREAD:Gold will plummet: the dollar will strengthen.

Of which I'm pretty sure the chinese have been doing for a while now. Imagine the stockpile of oil they could trade those USD's for? How long until opec starts demanding non-USD for their oil....

The central banks want to strip us of our wealth. That is what they have done in the past. Even if the whole world refuses our dollar, it is still the legal tender we use in this country. If any state or private individual creates a new sound currency here in America they will be going against the Federal government. We are stuck with the dollar to pay our debts until the government says different. If everybody is out of work and the banks are not issuing anymore debt, the dollar becomes scarce and it will deflate. What other currency or we going to use here in America?

We Americans are the richest people on Earth and the central banks are going to strip us of everything we have. Doesn't this fit into Obama's plan for a communistic government?
 
The central banks want to strip us of our wealth. That is what they have done in the past. Even if the whole world refuses our dollar, it is still the legal tender we use in this country. If any state or private individual creates a new sound currency here in America they will be going against the Federal government. We are stuck with the dollar to pay our debts until the government says different. If everybody is out of work and the banks are not issuing anymore debt, the dollar becomes scarce and it will deflatet says different. If everybody is out of work and the banks are not issuing anymore debt, the dollar becomes scarce and it will deflate. What other currency. What other currency or we going to use here in America?

We Americans are the richest people on Earth and the central banks are going to strip us of everything we have. Doesn't this fit into Obama's plan for a communistic government?

Why would the banks completely stop issuing more debt? Banks make money by giving loans. Now they are getting 2% by leaving their money at the Fed, but that is going to change at some point.
 
The bankers have grown weary of only controlling a few nations currencies. The actions they are taking currently are sure to destroy the dollar as this is necessary to move to a newer platform. This will also ensure they are on the ground floor for this new world wide currency.
 
Why would the banks completely stop issuing more debt? Banks make money by giving loans. Now they are getting 2% by leaving their money at the Fed, but that is going to change at some point.

When the banks stop issuing debt their cash reserves deflate. They take the surplus of cash they have and buy up assets with real value for practically nothing. They buy up other banks, corporations, real estate, etc.. To demostrate how the central banks work together, read the minutes of The House Stabilization Hearings of 1928. The Central Bank of London wanted back on the Gold Standard and dictated to the Fed to lower the discount rates. After doing this The Bank of England then took almost all of our gold reserves back to London, thus bringing instability to our dollar and bringing on The Great Depression. The central banks planned The Great Depression.


The House Stabilization Hearings of 1928 proved conclusively that the Governors of the Federal Reserve System had been holding conferences with heads of the big European central banks. Even had the Congressmen known the details of the plot which was to culminate in the Great Depression of 1929-31, there would have been nothing they could have done to stop it. The international bankers who controlled gold movements could inflict their will on any country, and the United States was as helpless as any other.

Notes from these House Hearings follow:

MR. BEEDY: "I notice on your chart that the lines which produce the most violent fluctuations are found under ‘Money Rates in New York.’ As the rates of money rise and fall in the big cities the loans that are made on investments seem to take advantage of them, at present, a quite violent change, while industry in general does not seem to avail itself of these violent changes, and that line is fairly even, there being no great rises or declines.

GOVERNOR ADOLPH MILLER: This was all more or less in the interests of the international situation. They sold gold credits in New York for sterling balances in London.

REPRESENTATIVE STRONG: (No relation to Benjamin): Has the Federal Reserve Board the power to attract gold to this country?

E.A. GOLDENWEISER, research director for the Board: The Federal Reserve Board could attract gold to this country by making money rates higher.

GOVERNOR ADOLPH MILLER: I think we are very close to the point where any further solicitude on our part for the monetary concerns of Europe can be altered. The Federal Reserve Board last summer, 1927, set out by a policy of open market purchases, followed in course by reduction on the discount rate at the Reserve Banks, to ease the credit situation and to cheapen the cost of money. The official reasons for that departure in credit policy were that it would help to stabilize international exchange and stimulate the exportation of gold.

CHAIRMAN MCFADDEN: Will you tell us briefly how that matter was brought to the Federal Reserve Board and what were the influences that went into the final determination?

GOVERNOR ADOLPH MILLER: You are asking a question impossible for me to answer.

CHAIRMAN MCFADDEN: Perhaps I can clarify it--where did the suggestion come from that caused this decision of the change of rates last summer?

GOVERNOR ADOLPH MILLER: The three largest central banks in Europe had sent representatives to this country. There were the Governor of the Bank of England, Mr. Hjalmar Schacht, and Professor Rist, Deputy Governor of the Bank of France. These gentlemen were in conference with officials of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. After a week or two, they appeared in Washington for the better part of a day. They came down the evening of one day and were the guests of the Governors of the Federal Reserve Board the following day, and left that afternoon for New York.

CHAIRMAN MCFADDEN: Were the members of the Board present at this luncheon?

GOVERNOR ADOLPH MILLER: Oh, yes, it was given by the Governors of the Board for the purpose of bringing all of us together.

CHAIRMAN MCFADDEN: Was it a social affair, or were matters of importance discussed?

GOVERNOR MILLER: I would say it was mainly a social affair. Personally, I had a long conversation with Dr. Schacht alone before the luncheon, and also one of considerable length with Professor Rist. After the luncheon I began a conversation with Mr. Norman, which was joined in by Governor Strong of New York.

CHAIRMAN MCFADDEN: Was that a formal meeting of the Board?

GOVERNOR ADOLPH MILLER: No.

CHAIRMAN MCFADDEN: It was just an informal discussion of the matters they had been discussing in New York?

GOVERNOR MILLER: I assume so. It was mainly a social occasion. What I said was mainly in the nature of generalities. The heads of these central banks also spoke in generalities.

MR. KING: What did they want?

GOVERNOR MILLER: They were very candid in answers to questions. I wanted to have a talk with Mr. Norman, and we both stayed behind after luncheon, and were joined by the other foreign representatives and the officials of the New York Reserve Bank. These gentlemen were all pretty concerned with the way the gold standard was working. They were therefore desirous of seeing an easy money market in New York and lower rates, which would deter gold from moving from Europe to this country. That would be very much in the interest of the international money situation which then existed.

MR. BEEDY: Was there some understanding arrived at between the representatives of these foreign banks and the Federal Reserve Board or the New York Federal Reserve Bank?

GOVERNOR MILLER: Yes.

MR. BEEDY: It was not reported formally?

GOVERNOR MILLER: No. Later, there came a meeting of the Open-Market Policy Committee, the investment policy committee of the Federal Reserve System, by which and to which certain recommendations were made. My recollection is that about eighty million dollars worth of securities were purchased in August consistent with this plan.

CHAIRMAN MCFADDEN: Was there any conference between the members of the Open Market Committee and those bankers from abroad?

GOVERNOR MILLER: They may have met them as individuals, but not as a committee.

MR. KING: How does the Open-Market Committee get its ideas?

GOVERNOR MILLER: They sit around and talk about it. I do not know whose idea this was. It was distinctly a time in which there was a cooperative spirit at work.

CHAIRMAN MCFADDEN: You have outlined here negotiations of very great importance.

GOVERNOR MILLER: I should rather say conversations.

CHAIRMAN MCFADDEN: Something of a very definite character took place?

GOVERNOR MILLER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN MCFADDEN: A change of policy on the part of our whole financial system which has resulted in one of the most unusual situations that has ever confronted this country financially (the stock market speculation boom of 1927-1929). It seems to me that a matter of that importance should have been made a matter of record in Washington.

GOVERNOR MILLER: I agree with you.

REPRESENTATIVE STRONG: Would it not have been a good thing if there had been a direction that those powers given to the Federal Reserve System should be used for the continued stabilization of the purchasing power of the American dollar rather than be influenced by the interests of Europe?

GOVERNOR MILLER: I take exception to that term "influence". Besides, there is no such thing as stabilizing the American dollar without stabilizing every other gold currency. They are tied together by the gold standard. Other eminent men who come here are very adroit in knowing how to approach the folk who make up the personnel of the Federal Reserve Board.

MR. STEAGALL: The visit of these foreign bankers resulted in money being cheaper in New York?

GOVERNOR MILLER: Yes, exactly.

CHAIRMAN MCFADDEN: I would like to put in the record all who attended that luncheon in Washington.

GOVERNOR MILLER: In addition to the names I have given you, there was also present one of the younger men from the Bank of France. I think all members of the Federal Reserve Board were there. Under Secretary of the Treasury Ogden Mills was there, and the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Schuneman, also, two or three men from the State Department and Mr. Warren of the Foreign Department of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Oh yes, Governor Strong was present.

CHAIRMAN MCFADDEN: This conference, of course, with all of these foreign bankers did not just happen. The prominent bankers from Germany, France, and England came here at whose suggestion?

GOVERNOR MILLER: A situation had been created that was distinctly embarrassing to London by reason of the impending withdrawal of a certain amount of gold which had been recovered by France and that had originally been shipped and deposited in the Bank of England by the French Government as a war credit. There was getting to be some tension of mind in Europe because France was beginning to put her house in order for a return to the gold standard. This situation was one which called for some moderating influence.

MR. KING: Who was the moving spirit who got those people together?

GOVERNOR MILLER: That is a detail with which I am not familiar.

REPRESENTATIVE STRONG: Would it not be fair to say that the fellows who wanted the gold were the ones who instigated the meeting?

GOVERNOR MILLER: They came over here.

REPRESENTATIVE STRONG: The fact is that they came over here, they had a meeting, they banqueted, they talked, they got the Federal Reserve Board to lower the discount rate, and to make the purchases in the open market, and they got the gold.

MR. STEAGALL: Is it true that action stabilized the European currencies and upset ours?

GOVERNOR MILLER: Yes, that was what it was intended to do.

CHAIRMAN MCFADDEN: Let me call your attention to the recent conference in Paris at which Mr. Goldenweiser, director of research for the Federal Reserve Board, and Dr. Burgess, assistant Federal Reserve Agent of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, were in consultation with the representatives of the other central banks. Who called the conference?

GOVERNOR MILLER: My recollection is that it was called by the Bank of France.

GOVERNOR YOUNG: No, it was the League of Nations who called them together."

The secret meeting between the Governors of the Federal Reserve Board and the heads of the European central banks was not called to stabilize anything. It was held to discuss the best way of getting the gold held in the United States by the System back to Europe to force the nations of that continent back on the gold standard. The League of Nations had not yet succeeded in doing that, the objective for which that body was set up in the first place, because the Senate of the United States had refused to let Woodrow Wilson betray us to an international monetary authority. It took the Second World War and Franklin D. Roosevelt to do that. Meanwhile, Europe had to have our gold and the Federal Reserve System gave it to them, five hundred million dollars worth. The movement of that gold out of the United States caused the deflation of the stock boom, the end of the business prosperity of the 1920s and the Great Depression of 1929-31, the worst calamity which has ever befallen this nation. It is entirely logical to say that the American people suffered that depression as a punishment for not joining the League of Nations. The bankers knew what would happen when that five hundred million dollars worth of gold was sent to Europe. They wanted the Depression because it put the business and finance of the United States in their hands.

The Hearings continue:

MR. BEEDY: "Mr. Ebersole of the Treasury Department concluded his remarks at the dinner we attended last night by saying that the Federal Reserve System did not want stabilization and the American businessman did not want it. They want these fluctuations in prices, not only in securities but in commodities, in trade generally, because those who are now in control are making their profits out of that very instability. If control of these people does not come in a legitimate way, there may be an attempt to produce it by general upheavals such as have characterized society in days gone by. Revolutions have been promoted by dissatisfaction with existing conditions, the control being in the hands of the few, and the many paying the bills.

CHAIRMAN MCFADDEN: I have here a letter from a member of the Federal Reserve Board who was summoned to appear here. I would like to have it put in the record. It is from Governor Cunningham:



Dear Mr. Chairman:

For the past several weeks I have been confined to my home on account of illness and am now preparing to spend a few weeks away from Washington for the purpose of hastening convalescence.

Edward H. Cunningham

This is in answer to an invitation extended him to appear before our Committee. I also have a letter from George Harrison, Deputy Governor of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.



My dear Mr. Congressman:

Governor Strong sailed for Europe last week. He had not been at all well since the first of the year, and, while he did appear before your Committee last March, it was only shortly after that that he suffered a very severe attack of shingles, which has sorely racked his nerves. George L. Harrison, May 19, 1928

I also desire to place in the record a statement in the New York Journal of Commerce, dated May 22, 1928, from Washington:

‘It is stated in well-informed circles here that the chief topic being taken up by Governor Strong of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York on his present visit to Paris is the arrangement of stabilization credits for France, Rumania, and Yugoslavia. A second vital question Mr. Strong will take up is the amount of gold France is to draw from this country.’"

Further questioning by Chairman McFadden about the strange illness of Benjamin Strong brought forth the following testimony from Governor Charles S. Hamlin of the Federal Reserve Board on May 23rd, 1928:

"All I know is that Governor Strong has been very ill, and he has gone over to Europe primarily, I understand, as a matter of health. Of course, he knows well the various offices of the European central banks and undoubtedly will call on them."

Governor Benjamin Strong died a few weeks after his return from Europe, without appearing before the Committee.

The purpose of these hearings before the House Committee on Banking and Currency in 1928 was to investigate the necessity for passing the Strong bill, presented by Representative Strong (no relation to Benjamin, the international banker), which would have provided that the Federal Reserve System be empowered to act to stabilize the purchasing power of the dollar. This had been one of the promises made by Carter Glass and Woodrow Wilson when they presented the Federal Reserve Act before Congress in 1912, and such a provision had actually been put in the Act by Senator Robert L. Owen, but Carter Glass’ House Committee on Banking and Currency had struck it out. The traders and speculators did not want the dollar to become stable, because they would no longer be able to make a profit. The citizens of this country had been led to gamble on the stock market in the 1920s because the traders had created a nationwide condition of instability.

The Strong Bill of 1928 was defeated in Congress.

The financial situation in the United States during the 1920s was characterized by an inflation of speculative values only. It was a trader-made situation. Prices of commodities remained low, despite the over-pricing of securities on the exchange.

The purchasers did not expect their securities to pay dividends. The idea was to hold them awhile and sell them at a profit. It had to stop somewhere, as Paul Warburg remarked in March, 1929. Wall Street did not let it stop until the people had put their savings into these over-priced securities. We had the spectacle of the President of the United States, Calvin Coolidge, acting as a shill for the stock market operators when he recommended to the American people that they continue buying on the market, in 1927. There had been uneasiness about the inflated condition of the market, and the bankers showed their power by getting the President of the United States, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to issue statements that brokers’ loans were not too high, and that the condition of the stock market was sound.

Wouldn't you agree that it sounds like what happened during the housing bubble?
 
Gold will just be gold.

Will a dollar be a dollar? That is the question.

If create a new global currency we will be under the foot of a global master, if we aren't already.

YumYum,

The central banks want to strip us of our wealth. That is what they have done in the past. Even if the whole world refuses our dollar, it is still the legal tender we use in this country. If any state or private individual creates a new sound currency here in America they will be going against the Federal government. We are stuck with the dollar to pay our debts until the government says different. If everybody is out of work and the banks are not issuing anymore debt, the dollar becomes scarce and it will deflate. What other currency or we going to use here in America?

We Americans are the richest people on Earth and the central banks are going to strip us of everything we have. Doesn't this fit into Obama's plan for a communistic government?

They have once again made off with it all.
 
Last edited:
Wouldn't you agree that it sounds like what happened during the housing bubble?

Ok. I have not read the whole thing, and I really dont want to spend my sunday night documenting about the claims of the Bank of England doing all this. The fact of the matter is that I agree with you that central banks create this mess. They create the inflationary boom, and they decide when they bring about the inevitable deflationary correction. Also, they can end sooner or later this correction and start to inflate a bubble again.

But in all this you are forgetting something: they need the system to keep working. They need the goverment in place and everything. And for that they need to inflate the currency or otherwise the goverment debt will be unpayable. So at some point they will start inflating again, and for a long time until the goverment debt is more bereable.

There is not going to be massive deflation. That would just kill the whole system. They are going to put presure to gather what they can and then inflate the hell.
 
Ok. I have not read the whole thing, and I really dont want to spend my sunday night documenting about the claims of the Bank of England doing all this. The fact of the matter is that I agree with you that central banks create this mess. They create the inflationary boom, and they decide when they bring about the inevitable deflationary correction. Also, they can end sooner or later this correction and start to inflate a bubble again.

But in all this you are forgetting something: they need the system to keep working. They need the goverment in place and everything. And for that they need to inflate the currency or otherwise the goverment debt will be unpayable. So at some point they will start inflating again, and for a long time until the goverment debt is more bereable.

There is not going to be massive deflation. That would just kill the whole system. They are going to put presure to gather what they can and then inflate the hell.

The government debt is not the responsibilty of the central bank to pay back. That responsibility rest on the American Public. You keep mixing government and politics with central banking. The governments are just instruments to be used by the central bankers. To prove my point look up the chart on page 26 of Dr. Paul's "End The Fed". This chart shows the purchasing power in the United States of Gold and selected currencies. You will notice that the Nazi Reichsmark held its purchasing power better that any other currency during the war. In fact it held its purchasing power clear up to the total destruction and surrender of Germany. How could this be? Its because the Nazi Germany had been backed by the Central Bank of London, thus demonstrating that the central banks influence is much greater on the stability of a currency than any government. Think about that for a moment. Berlin is about to fall and the Nazi Reichsmark had better purchasing power than our dollar. We're not anywhere near the collapse of Berlin.
The central banks are very much in control of our dollar, regardless of what our government does.
 
All the central banks are controlled by the Central Bank of London, including the Fed. You need to read the link I am providing. It will show the broader, correct picture of what is happening. How do you know what the central banks are currently doing? Nobody does. That is why we are pushing HR1207. Read this link and you will see exactly what the central banks have done in the past and how they operate.

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve.htm

The Chinese central bank is controlled by the Communist Party, an organization that has violently resisted control by any and al Western elites for 50+ years. Though they have shown some amount of cooperation since the Nixon administration, do not be fooled into thinking that they are under the control of London. Only the European and American central banks have been historically beholden to London, and even that link has weakened significantly over the last 30 years, as Rothschilds began to lose prominence, with the heirs slowly falling to the corruption that eventually consumes all "great" families.

You're right that no-one can predict the actions of any individual when backed into a corner, but the central bankers both in the Fed and in London have painted themselves into a corner in a way that they have never done before. There is no way out. One could claim that this is some sort of presage for a single global currency, but I don't think so, giving the failures that have been perceived with the Euro, especially in Spain and Ireland. Those countries see the lack of control over their own money as the problem (this has been reported in the media). They most certainly won't see a more dilute vote in monetary policy as the answer.

One can't say what will happen, but one certainly can say what WON'T happen. The dollar is going down, no matter how you look at it. The speed in which it fails will be a strong indicator of how cohesive the central banks are, granting vital insight into communications between central banks. We are certainly in for an interesting 2010. It is entirely possible that the entire works of the whole system will be laid bare before the end of next year, though only time will tell if it is too late to save the dollar (which CAN be saved, but only via gold and/or silver backing, which will cause the price of gold and/or silver to skyrocket).
 
When the banks stop issuing debt their cash reserves deflate. They take the surplus of cash they have and buy up assets with real value for practically nothing. They buy up other banks, corporations, real estate, etc..

This is very right. This is why gold will go UP. The central banks will be buying it like mad, along with all the sovereign wealth funds (these have only a tenuous connection to the central banks, at best), along with foreign corporations and individuals.

The only way gold can go down is if central banks SOMEHOW get all the dollars out of circulation (hard to do, when you don't have anything of value to trade for them), and then BURN them.
 
also keep in mind... gold made it's previous all time high (i think around $850 in 1980) when interest rates were around 20%
 
This is very right. This is why gold will go UP. The central banks will be buying it like mad, along with all the sovereign wealth funds (these have only a tenuous connection to the central banks, at best), along with foreign corporations and individuals.

The only way gold can go down is if central banks SOMEHOW get all the dollars out of circulation (hard to do, when you don't have anything of value to trade for them), and then BURN them.

Turning over the Government’s credit to private bankers in 1913 gave them unlimited opportunities to create money. The Federal Reserve System could also destroy money in large quantities through open market operations. Governor Marriner Eccles said, at the Silver Hearings of 1939:

"When you sell bonds on the open market, you extinguish reserves."

Extinguishing reserves means wiping out a basis for money and credit issue, or, tightening up on money and credit, a condition which is usually even more favorable to bankers than the creation of money. Calling in or destroying money gives the banker immediate and unlimited control of the financial situation, since he is the only one with money and the only one with the power to issue money in a time of money shortage. The money panics of 1873, 1893, 1920-21, and 1929-31, were characterized by a drawing in of the circulating medium. In economical terms, this does not sound like such a terrible thing, but when it means that people do not have money to pay their rent or buy food, and when it means that an employer has to lay off three-fourths of his help because he cannot borrow the money to pay them, the enormous guilt of the bankers and the long record of suffering and misery for which they are responsible would suggest that no punishment might be too severe for their crimes against their fellowmen.
 
Turning over the Government’s credit to private bankers in 1913 gave them unlimited opportunities to create money. The Federal Reserve System could also destroy money in large quantities through open market operations. Governor Marriner Eccles said, at the Silver Hearings of 1939:

"When you sell bonds on the open market, you extinguish reserves."

Extinguishing reserves means wiping out a basis for money and credit issue, or, tightening up on money and credit, a condition which is usually even more favorable to bankers than the creation of money. Calling in or destroying money gives the banker immediate and unlimited control of the financial situation, since he is the only one with money and the only one with the power to issue money in a time of money shortage. The money panics of 1873, 1893, 1920-21, and 1929-31, were characterized by a drawing in of the circulating medium. In economical terms, this does not sound like such a terrible thing, but when it means that people do not have money to pay their rent or buy food, and when it means that an employer has to lay off three-fourths of his help because he cannot borrow the money to pay them, the enormous guilt of the bankers and the long record of suffering and misery for which they are responsible would suggest that no punishment might be too severe for their crimes against their fellowmen.

The problem is, no-one wants US treasury bonds, except the Fed. This is like writing yourself checks to make it look like you have a lot of income. You'd think the feds were trying to qualify for a mortgage or something.
 
Every time I read the dollar will strengthen I am just not seeing it.


2508h-inflationgraph.jpg



The only way I see that happening is to regain control of the spending. I think that will take force. Like the force of a collapse.
 
Also keep in mind this is a slightly different situation. If we increase rates, that would mean the interest on the national debt will go up with the rates. I would think even if we raise rates 1 or 2% in the short term, the interest on the national debt alone would exceed the GDP. Which would mean the United States would be bankrupt.

thats a scary thought, but ultimately our dollar is backed by our military power.
 
Snip...

In economical terms, this does not sound like such a terrible thing, but when it means that people do not have money to pay their rent or buy food, and when it means that an employer has to lay off three-fourths of his help because he cannot borrow the money to pay them, the enormous guilt of the bankers and the long record of suffering and misery for which they are responsible would suggest that no punishment might be too severe for their crimes against their fellowmen.


Since when did it become a give-in that a thriving business needs to borrow money to make pay role?

Have we been operating at a level of default for so long that that sort of concept has become common place?
 
I'm not that strong on economics but it seems like there are a couple of opposing forces here, someone set me straight if my thinking is wrong.

I think what causes alot of economic disparity is the differences in economic theory, Keynesian, Friedman, Mieses, etc...

We have seen a huge tightening of credit, which is acting as a deflationary force (talking price deflation and really for all intents and purposes it is acting almost like monetary inflation because people's credit was acting like money in the market.

However, credit (as a lending tool) has been granted or given to the major banking institutions i.e. B of A, Wells fargo, and the like. They borrow the dollars by the fed funds rate, the interest the fed cahrges them to borrow the money. Which is at record lows at what may as well be zero interst rate. Money is basically given to them almost free of charge. I believe it is at .25% or so. But we are not seeing these banks release this credit or dollars and lending to business and individuals because of all the defaults, forclosures, etc...would you lend money in this economy expecting a return with unemployment at 10%? So credit has been granted which is why Wall Street is doing well but we the little people are sucking on the tailpipe.

And then we have the bailout/stimulus and insance amounts of printed money on the inflationary side. However, it seems like most of the money is not being spent into the economy, but is just being used to buy stocks, PMs and etc - so it is inflating the stock market but it is not causing the huge price inflation (at least not yet) that one would expect.

Yes, they are not lending it out to business (unless your to big to fail) or individuals. Have you received a credit card offer lately? Remember how those use to show up in the mail everywhere. Right again, it seems to me the institutions are covering themselves with what has been released in as you stated stocks and PM's. I would not be surprised if the money movers had positions in GM, after all GM is backed by the taxpayer now since the government has such a huge stake in it.

So it really SEEMS to this neophyte that there are still a lot of levers of control in TPTB's court. They could liquidate their stock holdings causing a market crash and causing inflation by spending their money into the economy. This will severely weaken the dollar but they come out winners as they spent their dollars first while they were still worth something.

I agree, but in the end it boils down to supply and demand. That is the supply of dollars v/s the demand (real or not) and how that is manipulated through interest rates (the cost of borrowing).

Or they can continue to tighten credit, unemployment continues to rise, this somewhat stabilizes the dollar, maybe even strengthens it, but causes deflation and things go more or less the path of the great depression.

Right, this is monetary policy loose credit v/s tight credit basically Bernake decides how many jobs are going to be lost.

And I am sure someone who actually knows what they are talking about can rip that to shreds and explain to me why I am wrong on both counts - I wish someone would actually, I want to understand this better. Sometimes I think I see it all pretty clearly, other times I prety much figure that TPTB are completely in control and they will manipulate things to their advantage and their really is no predicting anything by the rules that have worked in the past.

and no sir...just my two pieces of eight. Yep, they invent new methods to store and move money. Not to mention that now these things are done in coordinated efforts with other central banks around the world as was done earlier this year with Europe and Asia.

I failed miserably at muti quote!
 
Last edited:
So wrong. Interest rate rises, when they happen in the distant future, will be gradual #1. #2 raising interest rates sucks money out of the system. Can you imagine the commercial real estate market if even less money was available to roll over their loans? The truth of this is that they are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Their debt money system has finally reached its mathematical limit. The world economy can no longer support the interest payments. The system is collapsing. The question is with what will it be replaced? States are now investigating the Bank of North Dakota model where states create their own state-chartered banks and bypass the debt/interest trap. This may not control quantity, but, at least, it bypasses the interest.
 
So wrong. Interest rate rises, when they happen in the distant future, will be gradual #1. #2 raising interest rates sucks money out of the system. Can you imagine the commercial real estate market if even less money was available to roll over their loans? The truth of this is that they are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Their debt money system has finally reached its mathematical limit. The world economy can no longer support the interest payments. The system is collapsing. The question is with what will it be replaced? States are now investigating the Bank of North Dakota model where states create their own state-chartered banks and bypass the debt/interest trap. This may not control quantity, but, at least, it bypasses the interest.

Did you invest heavily in gold?
 
Back
Top