15 responses so far ↓

• 1 Eric Prindle // Aug 13, 2008 at 12:16 pm

  Is it me, or does McKinney speak much more convincingly in the latter two-thirds of this clip than she does in the first third?

• 2 G.E. // Aug 13, 2008 at 2:25 pm

  Although this would result in an even worse monetary system than the current one, at least she’s talking about it. Actually, this is what many “conservatives” actually want. This is what Freedom2Fascism seemed to promote with its usage of Lincoln’s quotes. Aaron Russo and Cynthia McKinney are horribly wrong, but again, at least they are talking about the sacred cow.

• 3 Peter Orvetti // Aug 13, 2008 at 2:58 pm

  I say we ditch currency altogether and revert to a system of barter. I’ll trade you my cat for an iPhone.

• 4 G.E. // Aug 13, 2008 at 3:03 pm

  Peter – That would be fine. Because I don’t want your cat, so I would make you come up with something else to trade me… Say, a commonly accepted means of exchange… Say, a gold coin, which you received (even though you didn’t want it for its own sake) when you traded a clowder (I’m assuming you’re a cat breeder) to a shoemaker, but you had no use for a clowder’s worth of shoes. So you accepted the gold coin knowing it could be later traded for something of use.

  Real money naturally arises out of barter. Bring it on.

• 5 mscrib // Aug 13, 2008 at 4:02 pm

  Who needs to barter? I support the “Yours is Mine” system. Can’t we, you know, just share and stuff, man?

• 6 Deran // Aug 13, 2008 at 6:25 pm

  It makes perfect sense to me. Help stabilize the economy by having a national bank. It’s a good first step.

  When G.E. says a “worse monetary system”, I assume that means one more favorable to working people, that being in his mind worse.

• 7 Mike Theodore // Aug 13, 2008 at 6:32 pm

  We’ve had a national bank for sometime now…

  Helped, didn’t it?

  I’m always a little lost on your definition of “working people”. I mean, aren’t all people working people? Or is there only a small group of those who should be given rights, in your opinion?

• 8 G.E. // Aug 13, 2008 at 6:34 pm

  No, Deran, it would be even less favorable to working people than the current system — which is horribly bad for working people. Inflation is the redistribution of wealth from poor to rich, Deran. You want more of it. You are a shill for the elites.

  Gold is the people’s money!

• 9 Trent Hill // Aug 13, 2008 at 6:40 pm

  Deran,

  You honestly have no concept of economics do you?

• 10 darolew // Aug 14, 2008 at 1:40 am

  “I’m always a little lost on your definition of “working people”. I mean, aren’t all people working people?”

  No. In the mind of the socialist, anyone performing work valuable enough to actually get paid a comfortable salary isn’t actually a worker. You’re also not a worker if you work a white collar job. Only the low-salary manual laborers count as workers. Everyone else is an exploiter.

• 11 Mike Theodore // Aug 14, 2008 at 1:54 am

  So is Deran’s understanding of economics developed from images on Soviet propaganda posters, or something?

• 12 G.E. // Aug 14, 2008 at 1:56 am

  Sounds about right.

• 13 Eric Prindle // Aug 14, 2008 at 8:23 am

  The Federal Reserve isn’t the “sacred cow.” Capitalism is the sacred cow. Blaming the Federal Reserve is a diversion.

  The fact that someone so far on the right wing of the political spectrum thinks it’s valuable that McKinney is raising this issue is a perfect example of why I think she should drop it.

• 14 Not a stupid GOY // Jul 16, 2010 at 8:07 pm

  You haven’t had a national bank since 1933. The Rothschilds and all their God’s chosen people agents own it privately and you pay interest to a private bank that is ILLEGAL, because your constitution says only CONGRESS can make your money. Americans are the stupid GOYIM of the Jewish Talmud. The Popes who forbade USURY were right. wake up brainwashed goyim of amerika

• 15 olde reb // Jan 10, 2011 at 1:52 am

  RAISE THE DEBT LIMIT ???

  It is a damned if we do, and damned if we don’t.

  The reason Bernacke does not want an audit is because a major source of income that is not on the books would be discovered.

  The national economy, since 1913, is based upon a Ponzi scheme.

  Every “dollar” in circulation is created based upon debt. Congress gives T-securities (bills, bonds, or notes) to the Federal Reserve, and the Fed credits the Treasury’s account with the value of the securities. Voila !!! New fiat money. Congress can spend up to the limit of the account and the Fed will honor the checks.

  The problem is that the arrangement obligates the US to pay interest on the principal thus generated. The interest has never been generated. It does not exist. It is impossible to culminate the agreement. The only way the interest can be paid is to generate more principal and pay the interest on the initial securities from the principal on the later securities. It is the classic Ponzi, par excellence.

  If a Ponzi scheme does not expand, it totally collapses. Additional expanding at this time, whether the Open Market Committee buys existing securities on the open market or Congress spends more deficit, merely postpones the inevitable collapse.

  Mathematical details on the rip-off by the Fed, including how the Fed obtains the ENTIRE VALUE of ALL issued securities (off of the accounting records) is posted at http://www.scribd.com/doc/43482648/rip-off-by-the-FR
  and http://www.scribd.com/doc/43465593/QE2-Rational-Course-of-Action

Leave a Comment