Thursday, April 30, 2009

A suggestion.

People need to break the two party system, stop voting, and advance a socialist agenda on their own. Freely and democratically. Without violence. Without debt-money.


Barga said...


without voting, then how the hell do you plan on having a change to the system?

Whalertly said...

you know, the money isnt really debt money because we can revoke their charter

JoeMcB said...

I'm not speaking for ander, but I don't think it would be a 'change to the system,' but rather a new system. It would entail creating a new system from the ground up... Grassroots, if you will.

And revoke whose charter? Honest question.

My understanding is that the money in our pockets is based on debt in several ways. Its creation by the fed and fractional-reserve banking for example.

Barga said...

How do you plan on creating a new one without this one just leaving
short of calling a new convention, that is

the chrater of the fed

Barga said...

i would assume

Ander said...

I plan on voting about 3000 times a day with the people I know that actually have something to do with my life. Not using my vote to concentrate power into the hands of the rich elite who own the country.

The Federal Reserve Note is a debt instrument. Treasury Bills are exchanged for Federal Reserve Notes. The T bills are used as a reserve for new loans in the Federal Reserve fractional banking system. For example: The Government prints $10,000, the Fed buys those and expects a 3% return on those T-bills. All but 1/2% of the Feds profits are returned to the treasury. But the Fed is only required to hold a small 5-10% percentage of those bills to serve as the basis for the printing and creation of new money in the federal reserve system. So the Private Corporation the Federal Reserve, which has never been audited, sits at the top of a private money system and is in control of almost 90% of the money supply. All of the money in circulation is represents a debt. If there were no debt there would be no money.

Barga said...

except the fed is a public institution protected as a private one, it is still governmental

Ander said...

There is no public over sight. The Fed has never been audited. The
FOMC is not elected and no one that runs that institution is elected. They are all appointed and chosen in secret meetings and we have no idea what their monetary policy is other than what we have seen which is the destruction of our currency and its purchasing power since 1913.

Whalertly said...

Mr. Ander person, that is where you are wrong. The is a fair bit of oversite by the federal government, hence the regulations

who cares if they are elected or not, the courts arnt

Barga said...

Continuing off of what whalertly said, if the government sets something up then they have power over it
they set up the fed

Ander said...

What regulations? All that congress has done for the last 100 years is repeal banking laws and regulations.

I don't particularly enjoy having someone have a say in what I do with my life if I can't have a say in the decisions they are making.

"Well, first of all, the Federal Reserve is an independent agency, and that means, basically, that there is no other agency of government which can overrule actions that we take. So long as that is in place and there is no evidence that the administration or the Congress or anybody else is requesting that we do things other than what we think is the appropriate thing, then what the relationships are don't, frankly, matter."

Alan Greenspan

In 1913, Congress voted to hand over its Constitutional authority
to "coin money and regulate the value thereof" to a consortium of private banks. It passed the "Federal Reserve Act".

Certain officers are appointed by the President, Congress exercises little to no oversight over the Fed's activities. It has never been audited in almost 100 years. It's balance sheets are completely private except for what they see fit to release to the public. The 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks are owned by the member banks who buy shares in it. This list is not public and very little information exists on who exactly holds shares in these banks.

All nationally chartered banks and bank holding companies
are by default member banks of the Federal Reserve System.
Just a few of the powerful banks which are owners of the Federal Reserve District Banks:

Goldman Sachs Bank (San Francisco Fed)
Bank of America (Richmond Fed)
Morgan Stanley (San Francisco Fed)

On the Board of Directors of the New York Federal Reserve Bank we find:

Jamie Dimon
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
JPMorgan Chase

Jeffrey R. Immelt
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
General Electric Company

Indra K. Nooyi
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
PepsiCo, Inc.

Why are the heads of for profit corporations on the board of a bank that is supposed to serve the interest of the public good? Not interests of shareholders and profit?

The Fed is a private corporation which has been granted a monopoly on the issuance of money by the public authority of government. It is therefore a public-private partnership. One where the interests of its shareholder member banks are placed before the interests of the general population. This arrangement privatizes profits and power and socializes losses. The banks and government will always win and we will always lose.

It is important to note that private banking control of the Federal Reserve Bank is not significant for the direct profits which member banks accrue. It is the control over the money supply, the manipulation of the general conditions of credit and debt and the political power associated with the private ownership of the nation's central bank which is meaningful.

Ander said...

Having power and actually using it are two completely different things. The congress does not exercise any power over the fed. If it were to do that and were to exercise its monetary authority, the Fed would be gone and unecessary. In fact it should be abolished and is unecessary.

JoeMcB said...

"i would assume" so you are arguing based on assumptions? Would you like some reading so you can argue based on fact?

Ander said...

I plan on creating a new one by just doing it. Finding people who are interested in organizing in a new way and find ways to work together. Why make it complicated?

Barga said...

call forth a constitutional converntion then

Ander said...

how about i just talk to people

Barga said...

we both know that if you want change that will not do anything

Ander said...

that's not true. I have already done it.

spending time working for politicians, devoting time and energy into things that benefit the rich classes, and setting up systems of hierarchical authority will not change anything. It will just be one more revolution on the wheel of destruction instead of an evolution.

Barga said...

so, how is talking to people going to chagne it

JoeMcB said...

through the exchange of ideas and finding solutions to common problems. Coming up with a plan and executing it directly. as long as we don't damage property or possession of other and do not do any harm to others physically or mentally, whats going to stop me?


You will be redirected shortly to our new website. If you are not redirected within 5 seconds please CLICK HERE!

Copyright Notice

(C) All articles, postings, images, etc. on this site are protected by relevant copyright law, unless otherwise specified. To use any original material in totality please ask for author permission.

(C) 2009, all rights reserved by, Robert M. Barga, and all contributing authors.