Why the modest inflation?

[Travlyr]

As anyone who has ever argued with you will agree, you're quite the master of diversion & intellectual dishonesty. But nonetheless, just for the heck of it, I'll answer the 3 questions :

No
Yes
Yes

Ok, so that random nonsense is out of the way - here's the point again - you support government robbing & coercing people, which automatically entails that you believe that people in government should have more rights than rest of the people, that is NOT equality at all, in fact, it's like slavery.

Clearly, you don't believe in all people having equal rights to their life, liberty & property!

Why are you still telling people what I believe. Clearly, your understanding of what I believe is wrong. I subscribe to classical liberal philosophy as described by Ludwig von Mises.

It is amazing to me the number of people on this forum who can not understand the proper role of government. Read Mises, "Liberalism, State and Government"

"The program of liberalism, therefore, if condensed into a single word, would have to read: property, that is, private ownership of the means of production... All the other demands of liberalism result from his fundamental demand."

Private ownership of the means of production not the private ownership of everything in the world.

I do not support government robbing people. I want the counterfeiting to stop ASAP. End the Fed tomorrow by legalizing competing currencies.

I also do not see all taxation as theft. I understand some taxes are fees for services. I do agree with Mises. What really baffles me is the number of people who read LvMI and disagree with Mises himself. I believe, like Mises, that a state is a necessary good in which to provide law administered by government officials.

We call the social apparatus of compulsion and coercion that induces people to abide by the rules of life in society, the state; the rules according to which the state proceeds, law; and the organs charged with the responsibility of administering the apparatus of compulsion, government.

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Hiring a hitman is an act of aggression. Period. I'm not going to get into an extended debate on this subject, because its really quite silly. The idea that "its not aggression unless you yourself pull the trigger" has more holes in it than a cheese grater. It doesn't hold up to reality, because you are in effect endorsing the right to hire people to kill others for money, which clearly conflicts with the vast majority of people's concept of natural law. Furthermore, just as a handgun is but a tool, so is a hitman. The person commissioning the hitman has coercive intent, and is simply using a different tool to complete the act. The only difference is that there are now two parties at blame for the murder than just one.

The bottom line is the idea that a person who hires a hitman is "wrong" but shouldn't be held responsible is an outlandishly oversimplified misunderstanding of the NAP. You're probably just trying to justify your apologies of the bankers, but if you do actually really believe this, I'd prefer not to discuss this aspect further. It's not worth my time, so if you disagree on this, then please just agree to disagree and move on, because you will never convince me that hiring a hitman is non-coercive.

In fact, defining coercion upon "intent" is a big blackhole, it's a pandora's box of its own. Let's go back to the parents starving their children, again, are they obligated to feed them? Is anyone obligated to feed anyone? No. The "intent" in this case is obvious, it's going to lead to children's death but does that mean the parents are using coercion? No.
Let's say a Christian priest desecrates Qur'an or photo of Mohammed or whatever with an "intent" to incite Muslims & demonstrate their violent nature, then some Muslims riot, vandalize & let's say kill some Christians, did the Christian priest commit coercion upon anyone? No.

As I've said, once you start trying to criminalize people based on "intent", it's going to lead to all kinds of scenarios where arbitrary judgments are going to be have to be made & people are going to disagree quite a bit & all you're going to end up with is crappy laws, words of which can be manipulated more wildly by lawyers, good for lawyers, good for their criminal-clients, bad for the society as a whole.
That's why it's important to keep laws simple & solid, so that they can't be wildly manipulated - if a person commits an act that's not voluntary, then it's not justifiable.

Further, there may be People-A (let's say like the person hiring the hitman) & People-B (like the hitman) - now, the incidence of crime is going to be higher in a society where both types of people exist compared to a society where People-B don't exist.
Somebody may want someone else killed but the mere "intent" itself is never sufficient to kill, it requires people willing to use direct coercion (like People-B), if nobody is willing to use coercion & kill then nobody dies no matter how much someone wants to kill somebody else, so given that he has a free choice, only the hitman can be said to engage in an unjustifiable, involuntary, coercive act.

As for trying to convince, I'd not try to convince any conspiracy-theorist because their views rely heavily on their imaginary world full of conspiracies, where anyone with a different view on things & anyone who doesn't share their delusions is immediately considered to be the part of the conspiracy, a "banker-apologist" or "disinformation-agent" or whatever. They have trouble being objective about things so the only way they are going to come around on any issue is if they somehow develop a more objective approach of looking at things but that realization has to come from inside, nobody can convince them of that.

The politicians are criminals too. And I would like to see them held accountable for their crimes, just as much as the bankers. The crimes of the politicians does not exculpate the crimes of the bankers. They are both responsible for the crimes of the Fed.

It's not a question of exculpating the government so much but it's the act of inculpating the private non-coercive actors that leads people in general (may be not you personally) to adopt a mentality that "all we've to do is disentangle the private influence within the government & government won't misuse it's coercive powers". Travlyr is a typical example of this, where he believes that "if only the government was decoupled from 'evil bankers' then government will be nice despite its coercive powers". Then there are the typical socialists who also think government will be great if we could just weed that the evil private influence, again, not realizing that the private influence exists only to benefit off of government's coercive powers!
In order to sidestep such delusions, it's important to be specific about the root of the problem, & that must be the coercive powers of the government, because blaming non-coercive private actors causes most people to disregard the root of the problem & they continue to engage in socialist fantasies of various kinds.

I've already proven that the banks make more profit with the Fed than without it. How much profit, can't be proven, but based on the available evidence and the strong correlation between money printed, and bankers profits... I'd say, A LOT.

You're just proving that you're a mindless apologist by calling that a "conspiracy theory"

No, you haven't proven anything, if it's about the PDs then here's the thing, whether Fed exists or not, PDs would still exist so long as government values their participation because as I've repeatedly pointed out, PDs are there to keep the markets liquid & spreads low, which allows the government to maximize its revenues from selling Treasuries/debt. So even if Fed were shut down tomorrow, PDs would likely continue to exist so your assumption that bankers support Fed to preserve their profits on PD-business is utterly fallacious.

And calling me "banker apologist" or whatever doesn't change anything about facts & facts are that you don't understand how the Fed works, you seem unable to grasp the magnitude of monetary benefit extracted by the government because of the Fed, you won't even bother to learn history & realize that governments have always tried to control issue of money & current times are no different. The only thing you "know" is the typical OWS approach that bankers are evil because they are making lots of money in ways that you can't comprehend so all those videos & articles out there saying that "bankers are evil" must be true

 

[Jordan]

Why modest inflation? Because the economy is only just beginning to recover. Inflation will become a concern only if and when the economy brings it on 1999 style. Personally, I'm ready to party like it's 1999.

Also, the Fed's policies are not nearly as inflationary as some believe.

 

[Travlyr]

It's not a question of exculpating the government so much but it's the act of inculpating the private non-coercive actors that leads people in general (may be not you personally) to adopt a mentality that "all we've to do is disentangle the private influence within the government & government won't misuse it's coercive powers". Travlyr is a typical example of this, where he believes that "if only the government was decoupled from 'evil bankers' then government will be nice despite its coercive powers".

Your reading skills are horrible dude, and your writing skills are deceitful. Why are you writing false crap about me? That's bullshit. Why are you telling people what I believe when you don't have a frikken clue?

I know that psychopaths gravitate toward government power no matter what. I also know that when enough people understand how the Federal Reserve System is stealing most of our individual wealth, then the counterfeiters will go the way of the dinosaur, and government will shrink to little of nothing because they will starve.

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

I also do not see all taxation as theft. I understand some taxes are fees for services.

All taxation is by definition theft/robbery as it is extracted forcibly from people, there's no choice, something that anybody who believes in equal rights won't find justifiable.
And taxation & user fees aren't always the same, taxation is coercive & extracted arbitrarily irrespective of whether a service was used or not, irrespective of the extent of the usage while user fees mayn't be so.

Besides, you support conscription, which is coercive & a form of slavery!

Anybody that truly supports freedom & believes in everyone having equal rights to life, liberty & property so they'll will ONLY support VOLUNTARY ACTION, no coercion of any kind because that would violate the principle of equal rights - & this doesn't seem to be the case with you!

I do agree with Mises. What really baffles me is the number of people who read LvMI and disagree with Mises himself. I believe, like Mises, that a state is a necessary good in which to provide law administered by government officials.

Why is everyone obligated to agree with Mises or Ron or anyone? They aren't. People can have different opinions, if Mises was a minarchist then that doesn't mean everybody here must be a minarchist, just because Ron is a Christian doesn't mean everybody here must be a Christian....

Besides, it seems Mises believed in micro-secession & you don't seem to, so why do you disagree with Mises?

 

[Travlyr]

All taxation is by definition theft/robbery as it is extracted forcibly from people, there's no choice, something that anybody who believes in equal rights won't find justifiable.
And taxation & user fees aren't always the same, taxation is coercive & extracted arbitrarily irrespective of whether a service was used or not, irrespective of the extent of the usage while user fees mayn't be so.

Besides, you support conscription, which is coercive & a form of slavery!

Anybody that truly supports freedom & believes in everyone having equal rights to life, liberty & property so they'll will ONLY support VOLUNTARY ACTION, no coercion of any kind because that would violate the principle of equal rights - & this doesn't seem to be the case with you!



Why is everyone obligated to agree with Mises or Ron or anyone? They aren't. People can have different opinions, if Mises was a minarchist then that doesn't mean everybody here must be a minarchist, just because Ron is a Christian doesn't mean everybody here must be a Christian....

Besides, it seems Mises believed in micro-secession & you don't seem to, so why do you disagree with Mises?

You have horrible reading skills. You still have no clue what I believe yet you are quite willing to tell others.

 

[TheTexan]

In fact, defining coercion upon "intent" is a big blackhole, it's a pandora's box of its own. Let's go back to the parents starving their children, again, are they obligated to feed them? Is anyone obligated to feed anyone? No. The "intent" in this case is obvious, it's going to lead to children's death but does that mean the parents are using coercion? No.
Let's say a Christian priest desecrates Qur'an or photo of Mohammed or whatever with an "intent" to incite Muslims & demonstrate their violent nature, then some Muslims riot, vandalize & let's say kill some Christians, did the Christian priest commit coercion upon anyone? No.

As I've said, once you start trying to criminalize people based on "intent", it's going to lead to all kinds of scenarios where arbitrary judgments are going to be have to be made & people are going to disagree quite a bit & all you're going to end up with is crappy laws, words of which can be manipulated more wildly by lawyers, good for lawyers, good for their criminal-clients, bad for the society as a whole.
That's why it's important to keep laws simple & solid, so that they can't be wildly manipulated - if a person commits an act that's not voluntary, then it's not justifiable.

Further, there may be People-A (let's say like the person hiring the hitman) & People-B (like the hitman) - now, the incidence of crime is going to be higher in a society where both types of people exist compared to a society where People-B don't exist.
Somebody may want someone else killed but the mere "intent" itself is never sufficient to kill, it requires people willing to use direct coercion (like People-B), if nobody is willing to use coercion & kill then nobody dies no matter how much someone wants to kill somebody else, so given that he has a free choice, only the hitman can be said to engage in an unjustifiable, involuntary, coercive act.

Pulling a trigger = coercive intent. Telling another to pull a trigger = coercive intent. Intentionally withholding food = intentionally withholding food. One is an active attack on another, and the other is passive non-action. It's apples and oranges.

Again, this idea that the person that hires the hitman isn't morally accountable has more holes than a cheese grater. You can write another small novel on it if you like, but doesn't change this fact.

As for trying to convince, I'd not try to convince any conspiracy-theorist because their views rely heavily on their imaginary world full of conspiracies, where anyone with a different view on things & anyone who doesn't share their delusions is immediately considered to be the part of the conspiracy, a "banker-apologist" or "disinformation-agent" or whatever. They have trouble being objective about things so the only way they are going to come around on any issue is if they somehow develop a more objective approach of looking at things but that realization has to come from inside, nobody can convince them of that.

Ah, the classic "conspiracy-theorist" card. The go-to argument when you have nothing constructive to say and simply wish to discredit via personal attacks.

It's not a question of exculpating the government so much but it's the act of inculpating the private non-coercive actors that leads people in general (may be not you personally) to adopt a mentality that "all we've to do is disentangle the private influence within the government & government won't misuse it's coercive powers". Travlyr is a typical example of this, where he believes that "if only the government was decoupled from 'evil bankers' then government will be nice despite its coercive powers". Then there are the typical socialists who also think government will be great if we could just weed that the evil private influence, again, not realizing that the private influence exists only to benefit off of government's coercive powers!
In order to sidestep such delusions, it's important to be specific about the root of the problem, & that must be the coercive powers of the government, because blaming non-coercive private actors causes most people to disregard the root of the problem & they continue to engage in socialist fantasies of various kinds.

No, you haven't proven anything, if it's about the PDs then here's the thing, whether Fed exists or not, PDs would still exist so long as government values their participation because as I've repeatedly pointed out, PDs are there to keep the markets liquid & spreads low, which allows the government to maximize its revenues from selling Treasuries/debt. So even if Fed were shut down tomorrow, PDs would likely continue to exist so your assumption that bankers support Fed to preserve their profits on PD-business is utterly fallacious.

And calling me "banker apologist" or whatever doesn't change anything about facts & facts are that you don't understand how the Fed works, you seem unable to grasp the magnitude of monetary benefit extracted by the government because of the Fed, you won't even bother to learn history & realize that governments have always tried to control issue of money & current times are no different. The only thing you "know" is the typical OWS approach that bankers are evil because they are making lots of money in ways that you can't comprehend so all those videos & articles out there saying that "bankers are evil" must be true

I haven't proven that the bankers make more money with the Fed than without it? Just how dense are you? a) It's simple economics, b) I posted it earlier, c) you still haven't addressed it - at all.

Banking is even more (a lot more) profitable when you have a best friend with a printing press who's singular purpose in life is to buy your shit. Tends to make things easier.

The Federal Reserve buys things. Based on FUCKING BASIC economic principles, that means they bought the product at a price that noone else was able and willing to pay at that time. It follows then, this also means that they gave the person they bought the product from more money than that person would have received otherwise. Again, this is economic FACT. Very fucking basic fact, at that.

Additionally, they buy these products from a select group of people; namely BANKERS. In VAST quantities.

This is 100% proof that the bankers do profit from this arrangement. How much is the only question, and there is no way to measure this. You can speculate based on available evidence (such as the correlation between money printed and profits), but the actual quantity cannot be mathematically proved.

It's proven they make more money with the Fed than without it. Your denial of this simple economic fact speaks volumes.

The bankers, out of their own personal greed and avarice, have contracted the government into building and maintaining a monetary system designed to steal from me, and give it to bankers and politicians. They lie through their teeth to protect the system for their own wealth, and show zero concern for the monstrous tyrannical government they have built with the system they created.

Your denial of this, again, speaks volumes.

 

[Travlyr]

I haven't proven that the bankers make more money with the Fed than without it? Just how dense are you? a) It's simple economics, b) I posted it earlier, c) you still haven't addressed it - at all.

It's proven they make more money with the Fed than without it. Your denial of this simple economic fact speaks volumes.

The bankers, out of their own personal greed and avarice, have contracted the government into building and maintaining a monetary system designed to steal from me, and give it to bankers and politicians. They lie to their teeth to protect the system for their own wealth, and show zero concern for the monstrous tyrannical government they have built with the system they created.

Your denial of this, again, speaks volumes.

Speaks Volumes.

"In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the 'hidden' confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights." - Alan Greenspan, Gold and Economic Freedom

"The Federal Reserve banks are one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever seen. There is not a man within the sound of my voice who does not know that this nation is run by the International bankers." - Congressman Louis T. McFadden (Rep. Pa)

"The few who understand the system, will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on it's favors, that there will be no opposition from either class." - Rothschild Brothers of London, 1863

"Our goal is gradually to absorb the wealth of the world." - Cecil Rhodes, "The secret banking cabal"

 

[Henry Rogue]

Also, the Fed's policies are not nearly as inflationary as some believe.

Care to elaborate? Do you mean monetary inflation or price inflation? Does the first eventually result in the second?

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

You have horrible reading skills. You still have no clue what I believe yet you are quite willing to tell others.

I don't think anybody is so naive to not realize what you believe.

You have yourself admitted that you support taxes (robbing people) & you support conscription (coercion), which automatically means that you don't believe in equal rights for all people but instead a system where people in government have more rights than rest of the people.

You can keep pretending that you are for freedom but you aren't, you just want "your version of freedom" just like socialists want "their version of freedom", not equal freedom for everyone!

 

[Travlyr]

I don't think anybody is so naive to not realize what you believe.

You have yourself admitted that you support taxes (robbing people) & you support conscription (coercion), which automatically means that you don't believe in equal rights for all people but instead a system where people in government have more rights than rest of the people.

You can keep pretending that you are for freedom but you aren't, you just want "your version of freedom" just like socialists want "their version of freedom", not equal freedom for everyone!

Your reading comprehension fails you miserably. I 100% agree with Ron Paul. I've read much of what he has written and I have watched many hours of his videos. My positions are completely in line with Ron Paul's position as he has articulated them. I believe that Ron Paul will go down in history as the greatest defender of liberty of our time. If you don't agree with Ron Paul, then that is fine with me, I seriously don't care. Just stop spreading lies about me and my positions.

Pillars of Prosperity: Free Markets, Honest Money, Private Property.

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Pulling a trigger = coercive intent. Telling another to pull a trigger = coercive intent. Intentionally withholding food = intentionally withholding food. One is an active attack on another, and the other is passive non-action. It's apples and oranges.

There is intent to kill in both instances & yet your verdict varies, that in itself proves my point that taking on such a stance is going to lead to a lot of disagreements amongst people & thousands of pages worth of legal code, which will eventually only stand to make lawyers richer & free more criminals.
Besides, if only hitman is held liable then there will be less incentive for his (likely rich) client to work towards getting a good lawyer & free him, which leaves a higher chance of having the actual coercive people getting convicted, & carrying on from my illustration in the previous post, the less "People-B" are out there, the less crime there will be irrespective of how many "People-A" are there.
Clearly, you haven't thought things through......but then you don't seem to have thought things through on other issues either.....
Nonetheless, as I've said, your judgment is very much clouded by conspiracy-theories so I won't argue.

I haven't proven that the bankers make more money with the Fed than without it? Just how dense are you? a) It's simple economics, b) I posted it earlier, c) you still haven't addressed it - at all.

And I've also pointed out in my previous posts that until the recent crisis, Fed hadn't benefitted banks in such ways & to such an extent.
So your basic argument is that bankers created Fed in 1913 & waited for almost a hundred years before extracting benefits from the system???? Really???
Clearly shows again that your views are based solely on conspiracy-theories rather than facts, reason & objectivity.

Or wait, let me guess, bankers are actually shape-shifting lizards who live for thousands or millions of years so they don't mind waiting a 100 or so!!!

Fed didn't buy up all those bad assets because they want to benefit the banks, they did so out of fear of further collapse of banks leading to worsening of the economy, further, it's also a way for Bernanke to try & drive down rates & thereby try to re-infate the bubble. But again, you don't seem to understand these things so good luck with conspiracies, lizards & everything.

It's proven they make more money with the Fed than without it. Your denial of this simple economic fact speaks volumes.

The bankers, out of their own personal greed and avarice, have contracted the government into building and maintaining a monetary system designed to steal from me, and give it to bankers and politicians. They lie through their teeth to protect the system for their own wealth, and show zero concern for the monstrous tyrannical government they have built with the system they created.

Your denial of this, again, speaks volumes.

Again, you don't understand how Fed works, what motivates them to do the things they do, how the government extracts enormous wealth through the economy through Fed, you can't even grasp the history of money that governments have always tried to control issuance of money & this system is no different.......you just can't grasp things so it seems palatable to believe fancy conspiracy-theories, researching & learning facts objectively is too much work I suppose

 

[TheTexan]

And I've also pointed out in my previous posts that until the recent crisis, Fed hadn't benefitted banks in such ways & to such an extent.

Yes, because the laws of supply and demand are a relatively new invention.

All you're doing now is resorting to personal attacks, strawmen, and red herrings. I'm done arguing with you PON II.

It is pretty funny watching you try to struggle to defend the crimes of the bankers though.

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Your reading comprehension fails you miserably. I 100% agree with Ron Paul. I've read much of what he has written and I have watched many hours of his videos. My positions are completely in line with Ron Paul's position as he has articulated them. I believe that Ron Paul will go down in history as the greatest defender of liberty of our time. If you don't agree with Ron Paul, then that is fine with me, I seriously don't care. Just stop spreading lies about me and my positions.

Pillars of Prosperity: Free Markets, Honest Money, Private Property.

It's really funny how hard you are trying to convince yourself that you're for liberty & equality, even though you're not!

As for reading comprehension goes, well, may be you should look at yours more closely, as I've repeatedly pointed out why you are against freedom & equality & yet you just can't seem to connect the dots (or are pretending not to be able to connect them out of fear of realization that you're in fact against liberty & equality)

I don't know what "lies" I've posted but may be you have a different definition of what constitutes a "lie" since you seem to have your own weird definitions for "freedom" & "equality"

Nonetheless, I'll point it out again, may be this time you'll be able to connect the dots -
Ok, so you have admitted that you support taxation which equals supporting robbery, you support conscription which equals supporting coercion & slavery, it means that you believe that people in government have more rights than the rest, which means you support a class-structure where people in government are masters while rest of people are their slaves!

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Yes, because the laws of supply and demand are a relatively new invention.

All you're doing now is resorting to personal attacks, strawmen, and red herrings. I'm done arguing with you PON II.

It is pretty funny watching you try to struggle to defend the crimes of the bankers though.

Really??? So that's your contention???? Pretty pathetic it must be said

It's really funny how conspiracy-theorists try to find things to justify their ill-conceived beliefs, & every time a mirror is shattered they try to find a new fake one that will tell them what they believe to be true.
First, the conspiracy-theorists, convinced that bankers are the cause of every problem in the world, claim that "evil bankers" receive interest from government on the money they create, when that nonsense was proven to be false, conspiracy-theorists claim that "evil bankers" are earning excessively through PD-system & that's why they support Fed, after it's pointed that existence of PDs isn't dependent upon existence of Fed, conspiracy-theorists claim that "evil bankers" are benefitting through Fed buying up their bad assets, after it's pointed out that that has never been the norm for a century since Fed's inception, then, conspiracy-theorists don't know whether to run or to hide!

Nonetheless, thanks for all the laughs you've provided, I hope that some day you'll learn the good sense to base your views on facts, reason & objectivity, & not on fancy, speculative hypotheses born out of the minds of some internet-nobodies, who can't be bothered with facts & reality! Good luck!

 

[Travlyr]

It's really funny how hard you are trying to convince yourself that you're for liberty & equality, even though you're not!

As for reading comprehension goes, well, may be you should look at yours more closely, as I've repeatedly pointed out why you are against freedom & equality & yet you just can't seem to connect the dots (or are pretending not to be able to connect them out of fear of realization that you're in fact against liberty & equality)

I don't know what "lies" I've posted but may be you have a different definition of what constitutes a "lie" since you seem to have your own weird definitions for "freedom" & "equality"

Nonetheless, I'll point it out again, may be this time you'll be able to connect the dots -
Ok, so you have admitted that you support taxation which equals supporting robbery, you support conscription which equals supporting coercion & slavery, it means that you believe that people in government have more rights than the rest, which means you support a class-structure where people in government are masters while rest of people are their slaves!

lolz... Well PONII if it weren't for you telling me what I believe then I wouldn't believe anything at all. It is rather dumb to keep lying about me. Everyone else on the forum can read dude. We all know you are simply a shill for the evil bankers.

 

[TheTexan]

lolz... Well PONII if it weren't for you telling me what I believe then I wouldn't believe anything at all. It is rather dumb to keep lying about me. Everyone else on the forum can read dude.

That's all he's done for this entire thread. Lies, personal attacks, and strawmen.

We all know you are simply a shill for the evil bankers.

The bankers aren't evil you're just a conspiracy theorist! (<-- the gist of his "argument")

 

[Travlyr]

That's all he's done for this entire thread. Lies, personal attacks, and strawmen.

The bankers aren't evil you're just a conspiracy theorist! (<-- the gist of his "argument")

Yeah, and he rates equality right up there with liberty just like a good socialist banker shill would do.

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

lolz... Well PONII if it weren't for you telling me what I believe then I wouldn't believe anything at all. It is rather dumb to keep lying about me. Everyone else on the forum can read dude. We all know you are simply a shill for the evil bankers.

Again, you believe it's ok for government to rob (tax) & coerce (conscript) people, that clearly means you're against freedom & equality for all. Denying it doesn't change facts!

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

That's all he's done for this entire thread. Lies, personal attacks, and strawmen.



The bankers aren't evil you're just a conspiracy theorist! (<-- the gist of his "argument")

Oh really? In fact, I've provided clear arguments that completely shatter your conspiracy-theories about Fed & banking, that's why you're having to tuck your tail and run!

And I've never said bankers aren't evil or anything, bankers are a diverse group of individuals, I don't know all of them so I can't paint them with any kind broad brush - all I've tried is to point out that in the light of facts & reason (as opposed to fancy conspiracy-theories), it CAN'T be said that Fed was created primarily to benefit the bankers, it was NOT, it was created primarily to benefit the government & anyone who's willing to learn & research facts, can clearly see for themselves that government has been & is the largest beneficiary of Fed's money-creation, not banks.

But again, if some people are immune to facts & reason, & instead like to revel in fancy conspiracy-theories then there's not much that can be done to help them!