The Paul File

You are sadly mistaken. The Fed doesn't print any money.
220px-USCurrency_Federal_Reserve.jpg
“… Federal Reserve Note {like these in photo} is a type of banknote used in the United States of America.
Federal Reserve Notes are printed by the United States Bureau of Engraving and Printing on paper made by Crane & Co. of Dalton, Massachusetts.
They are the only type of U.S. banknote that is still produced today

Federal Reserve Notes are authorized by Section 411 of Title 12 of the United States Code and are issued to the Federal Reserve Banks
at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
The notes are then put into circulation by the Federal Reserve Banks.[3] Once the notes are put into circulation, they become liabilities of the Federal Reserve Banks and obligations of the United States.

Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender, with the words "this note is legal tender for all debts, public and private" printed on each note. (See generally 31 U.S.C. § 5103.) They have replaced United States Notes, which were once issued by the Treasury Department. …”

Quote & photo of Fed's notes is from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Note

PS "Dollar(s)" is the popular term for the FED's notes. Most of the "currency" in circulation is actually electronic and the FED creates that too by authorizing it in 12 or so "participating" commercial banks to be credited the Fed's account in them. This becomes a new "bank deposit," which due to the multiplier effect is nearly a ten fold increase in the circulating "currency," M1 I think measures amount of it.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So?
The FAA mandated essentially the same security measures that the TSA enforces now, the difference is the previous systems varied greatly in effectiveness and dilligence.
The TSA simply replaces that with a more effective agency.



No, because it isn't just your chances. Other peoples safety is also involved.
You aren't the only one on the plane after all.

Regardless, this is such a bogus issue because the fact is, with or without the TSA there would still be govenment mandated screening, and having been a frequent traveler for decades my opinion is that the TSA is not only better at screening but also much more efficient. So while you are complaining about the TSA, they are essentially no different that what was supposed to be done pre 9/11.

Indeed you have not suggested an alternative to the TSA that is acceptable.
Indeed, every other free country, England, Sweeden, Germany, Japan, Australia, France, Spain, Canada etc etc all have essentially the same screeening we do.



And no one has been anal probed in order to be able to fly. OK?
For fiscal year 2011 the TSA had a budget of $8.1 BILLION dollars. Number of Terrorists caught or prevented from entering a plane? Zero.

That's a Tank Car.

On June 24, 2011, Olajide Noibi was allowed to board a Virgin America flight from New York City to Los Angeles after TSA agents allowed him through security despite having an expired boarding pass, the name on the ID and boarding pass not matching and using a University of Michigan student ID. In Los Angeles, he was allowed into the sterile area with an invalid boarding pass before a Delta Air Lines ticket agent stopped him from boarding a Delta flight to Atlanta.


A Ron Paul mandate is for private companies to hire their own security firms. I support that position.


I wonder, do you think that the TSA should be allowed to monitor our roads, streets, sidewalks, waterways to prevent Islamic Terrorists from some other country from blowing up a building or a bridge? Do you think it'd be a good idea for Americans to carry identification papers around with them? I mean, it would make you safer.
 
Last edited:
You are sadly mistaken.
The Fed doesn't print any money.

'printing money' is an expression to denote the fact that they 'create money'. Just because they aren't 'literally printing paper' is trying to play semantics. Ya they just use a computer to increase money.

Right now if Bank Of America changed my $100 account into $4 Trillion Dollars, they didn't print anything. But now I have $4 Trillion dollars. That's what the Fed does.

So let me get this straight..

I take 'real paper money' deposit it in the bank. My bank shows $100 which represents the $100 'printed dollars' I deposited. Is that 'digital number in my bank account represent printed money'? Yes, so that is what I deposited. If I deposit '$100' of printed money will my account ever show "$5000" no.. So it can be safely said that the 'digital number' = representation of printed money.

So now you tell me.. They don't print money. Just because things went 'digital' you can't say 'they aren't printing money', well DUH! Cuz its digital so thus the phrase 'printing money' now refers to the 'digital act' of increasing the 'digital numbers' which absolutely represent 'printed money'.


If today Bank of America changed my $100 to $5000, I can withdraw $5000 of REAL PRINTED DOLLARS.

So I can appreciate your smartass answers, but I'd also prefer some intellectual honesty, and I'm sure you understand that 'printing of money' in the digital sense would be an expression of 'creating money'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EV-JpS0XCYA

(Money does not equal paper. Money is something of value that is used in a trade to represent value. That is what 'digital numbers' that represent dollars are, funny how Bernanke understands this so he contradicts himself in saying both sides: "don't print" (literal definition of 'print') and 'effectively' printing money" (real understanding of money). If one wants to remain an idiot, that's another story. The 'form' of money frankly is irrelevant, 'physical' gold, gold certificates, vs digital gold (e-gold, goldmoney) still ALL represent gold. Printed dollars, and 'digital numbers' in bank still represent dollars. Its still money.)
 
Last edited:
The Treasury prints and mints all paper currency and coins in circulation through the Bureau of Engraving and Printing and the United States Mint. ...
Yes, for historic reasons related to the time when the Treasury did decide about the printing of money, the Treasury still is in the chain of command that prints paper currency in circulation. Next in that chain is the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. Finally in the chain that starts with a decision and orders by the FED, there is an employee of that Bureau who who orders the press crew. If you want to be silly, he is the agent who actually prints the paper money, but only after the FED has authorized it and said how much.

Many years ago, the US Treasure did decide* on how, when, and how much to print. Now, some time after the FED was created, the treasury has NOTHING to do with those decisions. It is just one of three agents in the chain of command that gets the presses rolling to make the new money the FED ordered made. As for example in QE1 & 2, the treasury is not deciding, ordering new funds be created.

All printing of physical money or the creation of new electronic money it is ordered by the FED, NOT by the Treasury. The FED says when and how much. Specifically it is the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System that creates ALL new funds that circulate in the US.

Most of the circulating money is electronic credits now days. For the production of that, the Treasury is not even part of the chain of command the FED's "Print Order" passes thru. The FED just tells some (or all) of its (12, I think) "participating" commercial banks to credit the FED's account in them with X dollars. These are "new deposits" in those banks which like any other money deposited can have up to 90% lent to others. These lent funds usually** end up as deposits in some other bank, which can then lend up to 90% of that deposit to still others so it typically ends up in another bank, etc. with the net final effect that up to 10 times the FED's direct deposit in the first participating bank is added to the M1 money supply. Thus for more than 90% of the creation of new circulating money the Treasury is not even an agent in the chain of command creating new money.

Go ahead adoucette -admit, for the first time ever, that you were wrong. It does not hurt - I have done it.

* Back in the mid and late 1800s, some times it was the congress that decided to create new money. For example they ordered the mint to coin new siliver dollars from all the silver brought to it. The silver producing state's congress people were behind this as they wanted silver dollars to circulate more instead of gold dollars.

Congressman William Jennings Bryan gave a still famous speech which included: "Mankind should not be crucified on a Cross of Gold." - It was one of the most moving speechs ever given in Congress. Back then the US Treasury normally did print money. (FED did not exist yet.)
275px-Bryan_after_speech.png
That's him on congress men's shoulders. More at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_of_Gold_speech

The FED can also increase M1 (when, as now, the Treasury wants/ needs/ to sells bonds that would need higher interest rates than the FED desires). It does this with "thin air money" using its EXCLUSIVE power to create money. ("Exclusive" as the Treasury can NOT create money.)

I.e. the FED is one of the main buyers of US bonds and paying for those Treasury bonds does put more "thin air money" into circulation. Again all new money production and even interest rates is controlled by the FED. The Treasury just makes new bonds as needed to pay the US's growing deficits and to "roll" the oldered maturing ones and tries to sell them. They, not the FED, do determine how many of each maturity they make. I.e. The Treasury's job is to manage the US debt, not to make new money.

** Not what often happens today, especially with the Funds the ECB makes from "thin air." Most banks in US and EU are NOT lending the newly created funds. Instead of take some risk for higher interest, they are buying the treasury bonds. Thus, to considerable extent, the FED and the ECB are "pushing on a string" - not able to get their new thin air money into the real economy to stimulate it.

"{European} Commercial banks parked almost half a trillion euros at the European Central Bank, the highest on record, as the mix of debt crisis worries and a recent giant injection of ECB cash left banks awash with money but too scared to lend it. ..." From: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/282306/20120116/wary-banks-boost-ecb-deposits-reserve-change-due.htm

I.e. 100% of the ECB's recently injected thin air money had no stimulation effect! For the same reasons, until very recently, QE 1 & 2 had little effect except by buying Treasury bonds, these "scared US banks" did help the FED keep interest rates low.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'printing money' is an expression to denote the fact that they 'create money'. Just because they aren't 'literally printing paper' is trying to play semantics. Ya they just use a computer to increase money.

Can no one understand a joke?
The Fed doesn't print money, as you claimed, the Treasury does.

But Yes, as the link I provided, the Fed affects the money supply.
But, unlike your claim, as the article also shows, it can't just "print money" to solve our problems as there are negative consequences and limits to the amount of money it can inject into the system (people have to want to borrow the money for instance).

Right now if Bank Of America changed my $100 account into $4 Trillion Dollars, they didn't print anything. But now I have $4 Trillion dollars. That's what the Fed does.

NO it is not.

http://pragcap.com/read-fed-print-money

So let me get this straight..

I take 'real paper money' deposit it in the bank. My bank shows $100 which represents the $100 'printed dollars' I deposited. Is that 'digital number in my bank account represent printed money'? Yes, so that is what I deposited. If I deposit '$100' of printed money will my account ever show "$5000" no.. So it can be safely said that the 'digital number' = representation of printed money.

So now you tell me.. They don't print money. Just because things went 'digital' you can't say 'they aren't printing money', well DUH! Cuz its digital so thus the phrase 'printing money' now refers to the 'digital act' of increasing the 'digital numbers' which absolutely represent 'printed money'.

No, that's a function of the Fractional Reserves.
The fed can influence money supply by changing the reserve supply.
It can increase the money in circulation only when there is a demand for dollars, with the caveat that doing so will reduce the demand for dollars.
Banks, not the fed, create money when they loan money.
Depending on the Fed Reserve requirements, depends on the multiplier involved.

If today Bank of America changed my $100 to $5000, I can withdraw $5000 of REAL PRINTED DOLLARS.

Which the bank can't do without using funds from other customers to do so and by creating an obligation on you to pay back that money. It's called a loan.

(Money does not equal paper. Money is something of value that is used in a trade to represent value. That is what 'digital numbers' that represent dollars are, funny how Bernanke understands this so he contradicts himself in saying both sides: "don't print" (literal definition of 'print') and 'effectively' printing money" (real understanding of money). If one wants to remain an idiot, that's another story. The 'form' of money frankly is irrelevant, 'physical' gold, gold certificates, vs digital gold (e-gold, goldmoney) still ALL represent gold. Printed dollars, and 'digital numbers' in bank still represent dollars. Its still money.)

Generally speaking, M2 equals paper and coin money in circulation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply
 
Last edited:
I take 'real paper money' deposit it in the bank. My bank shows $100 which represents the $100 'printed dollars' I deposited. Is that 'digital number in my bank account represent printed money'? Yes, so that is what I deposited. If I deposit '$100' of printed money will my account ever show "$5000" no..

Sure it can. You can get a loan, and that $100 will magically become $5000. You can then withdraw it and have those $5000 dollars in your hand.

That's money that the BANK created. No evil government involved.
 
Who in America do you know with more money than Bill Gates?

Jobs was worth over 8 Billion and was the CEO of Apple.

There is a short list of those more wealthy or powerful than these two men.

Yeah, in your mind, wealth = power = ruling class.... O.K, but its not that simple and you know it.

Clue; ruling class are the one making the rules...
 
Yeah, in your mind, wealth = power = ruling class.... O.K, but its not that simple and you know it.

Clue; ruling class are the one making the rules...

The post I replied to was about the RULERS of a CAPITALIST society.

These are two to the most recent uber-successful CAPITALISTS.

You work for Apple or Microsoft and these guy's rules were definately the ones that affected you.

Are you now trying to turn this into a political discussion?

Are you trying to say that people like Obama or Boehner are Parasites?
 
Last edited:
You referred to the RULES of a CAPITALIST society.

These are two to the most successful CAPITALISTS.

You work for Apple or Microsoft and these guys rules were definately the ones that affected you.

Are you now trying to turn this into a political discussion?

Are you serious with that rambling ? Apple and Microsoft making the rules of capitalists society ?
Maybe you better read the Jason Reads quote one more time...

Political discussion, in politics section of the forum in a thread about politician ?
Hell no, that would be highly illogical !
 
Are you serious with that rambling ? Apple and Microsoft making the rules of capitalists society ?

No, Steve and Bill would be the rulers. (until Steve died of coures)

And considering that between Apple and Microsoft, these two men directly employ about 120,000 people and that hundreds of thousands are indirectly employed by them, and that they are the CEO's of companies have a combined market cap of over 1/2 TRILLION dollars, then yeah I'd say they are clearly RULERS in any Capitalistic sense.

Maybe you better read the Jason Reads quote one more time...

Political discussion, in politics section of the forum in a thread about politician ?
Hell no, that would be highly illogical !

Sure, that's why I asked.
So WHO do you think are the PARASITES?
 
You count them as the "ruling class"...? LOL

He knows all too well who the ruling class is, he's hired to defend them and lie about their business and machinations. Merely a diversionary tactic I assure you. We know who we're talking about here. They fund both the Obama campaign and Romney's campaign.

All warfare is based on deception.
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
 
No, Steve and Bill would be the rulers. (until Steve died of coures)

And considering that between Apple and Microsoft, these two men directly employ about 120,000 people and that hundreds of thousands are indirectly employed by them, and that they are the CEO's of companies have a combined market cap of over 1/2 TRILLION dollars, then yeah I'd say they are clearly RULERS in any Capitalistic sense.



Sure, that's why I asked.
So WHO do you think are the PARASITES?

Stop that, quit your lying. You are smarter than that, you don't believe that for one second. The financial institutions on Wall street have a lot more power over the economy than these two powerful electronic gadget shops. Pleeeeease. :rolleyes:

executive_compensation.gif


"Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws."
~Mayer Amschel Rothschild
 
So you think the CEOs of these large banks are Parasites?

What have you done with your life that is worthy of an entry in Wikipedia?

John Stumpf runs one of the biggest most profitable banks in the country, providing essential banking services to tens of millions of people and millions of businesses.

Sorry, I think I'd take the contributions of a single John Stumpf over 100 Esotericists any day.
 
So WHO do you think are the PARASITES?
Blythe Masters, her bitch Jamie Dimon, Lloyd Blankfein (he actually lQQks like a parasite), Douglas Flint etc....

Instead of casino's, Banks should be treated like utilities.

Money lenders have been considered parasites by many cultures. Christians, Jews and Muslims all put laws against it. The Chinese and Japanese (as examples) put money lenders down on the bottom rung of society because they didn't work like farmers, craft like craftsmen, they didn't fight like solders, they didn't invent things, they didn't write poetry, they didn't even invent money, they didn't give money it's inherent value (which then was gold, society does that) what they are good at is how to direct it use somewhat effectively - and this is an important cog in the social machine, so, they are necessary, we can't function as well without this service (sort of like toilet paper).


Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, these people actually create something that makes society better. I have the most respect for them.


Once again, Banks are going to have to quit their casino racket and go back to being boring OK paid utilities.
 
So you think the CEOs of these large banks are Parasites?

What have you done with your life that is worthy of an entry in Wikipedia?

John Stumpf runs one of the biggest most profitable banks in the country, providing essential banking services to tens of millions of people and millions of businesses.

Sorry, I think I'd take the contributions of a single John Stumpf over 100 Esotericists any day.
WIKI:

In a March 2010 agreement with federal prosecutors, Wells Fargo acknowledged that between 2004 and 2007 Wachovia had failed to monitor and report suspected money laundering by narcotics traffickers, including the cash used to buy four planes that shipped a total of 22 tons of cocaine into Mexico.

In August 2010, Wells Fargo was fined by U.S. District Judge William Alsup for overdraft practices designed to "gouge" consumers and "profiteer" at their expense, and for misleading consumers about how the bank processed transactions and assessed overdraft fees.


Let me guess, John Stumpf deserves the $10s of millions (which is WAY more than Albert Einstein was ever paid) of dollars in stock, cash and bonuses because he's so "smart" and "runs a tight ship" BUT when it comes to running a drug racket that has literally destroyed most of Mexico (including the murder of entire f*cking towns, raped children, family decimated) oooooOOOooooo then John Stumpf and his ilk had no clue as to what was going on around him or what he was doing, buying or selling.

It's interesting how you pick your heroes. I'll take Einstein any day of the God damn week :D John Stumpf pulls a few strings and *poof* all is forgiven - he won't see a day of justice. But, I'll tell you this. I'd love to but John Stumpf in one of the Mexican towns his company help decimate and see how the Mexicans who lost entire sides of their families treat him. That'd be very interesting to see.

Anyway, John Stumpf is a very effective parasite in this world - big f*cking deal. Tila Tequila runs a successful career and has a much larger Wiki page than Stumpf. More people know her. Big deal.


Or better yet, what are your thoughts on Hosni Mubarak? He's worth between 2 and 70 billion dollars, ran an entire f*cking country, hired tens of thousands of people (his family still does). He's got a HUGE wiki entry. So, according to you, he's "successful". Ah, but this year he's on trial and maybe, if we're lucky, he'll rot in prison.

Let's hope the future treats your bankster friends as kindly :)
 
Back
Top