History lesson about money

[R Croxford]

Yes indeed this has alot to do with JFK's assasination. Before you solve a murder you must first find a motive to find the reason why they killed him. Why? because he was a dem? Why do you think they killed him? You want this string removed then I ask you to please give a theory as to why YOU think they killed him? And I will see if it has anything to do with this forum alrighty.
Paul great research keep it up. The answer to JFK's murder is in this thread if you can piece it together.
What if someone told you Hitler was a Rothschild and that everything you know is a lie? Sounds like paranoia huh? Nothing conspiritorial about truth.
A war is being fought and most of the world doesn't even know it. I have posted some pretty deep stuff on this forum and i should remeber to copy them so I do not have to re write them every damn time. Paul is on the right course.
Please do not request to have this string removed again it has more information than most people can even try to absorb, But if you can you willl see the answers you seek.
WW1, WW2, Vietnam, Korea, Iraq they are all prefabed for the powers of the world to manipulate and control the masses.
Ok I am getting dizzy got to stop know. I seem to have come down with vertigo and panic attacks over the last year.
What is truth?
Who's truth is truth?
Is my truth more thruthful then your truth?
Peace

[Bruce Patrick Brychek]

Dear Mr. R. Croxford,

I have just reviewed this post of yours, and this entire thread yet again.

R. Croxford, you are truly a valued member and contributor of the JFK Forum. You are on my list of favorites.

Remember the line in the movie Bravehart, when the narrator says that history is written by the victors. Isn't this what the CIA and the Military Industrial Complex does in the U.S. ?

I recently saw a high school history book. One paragraph - JFK killed by a lone nut, Lee Harvey Oswald. MLK killed by a lone nut - James Earl Ray. RFK killed by a lone nut - Sirhan Sirhan.

R. Croxford, I agree with your thought process. What is truth ? What becomes truth ? At what point do the masses fail to care either way ?

Respectfully,
Bruce Patrick Brychek.

[Pennyworth]

Mona Lisas And Mad Hatters Music by Sir Elton JohnLyrics by Bernie TaupinAvailable on the album Honky Château And now I knowSpanish Harlem are not just pretty words to sayI thought I knewBut now I know that rose trees never grow in New York CityUntil you've seen this trash can dream come trueYou stand at the edge while people run you throughAnd I thank the Lord there's people out there like youI thank the Lord there's people out there like youWhile Mona Lisas and Mad HattersSons of bankers, sons of lawyersTurn around and say good morning to the nightFor unless they see the skyBut they can't and that is whyThey know not if it's dark outside or lightThis Broadway's gotIt's got a lot of songs to singIf I knew the tunes I might join inI'll go my way aloneGrow my own, my own seeds shall be sown in New York CitySubway's no way for a good man to go downRich man can ride and the hobo he can drownAnd I thank the Lord for the people I have foundI thank the Lord for the people I have found © 1972 Dick James Music Limited

[Pennyworth]

Paul Pennyworth wrote:http://www.reformation.org/rockefeller- ... -bush.html[

http://www.reformation.org/rockefeller- ... -bush.html

[R Croxford]

The article Paul has linked here is very valuable.
Remember guys, Everyone is trying to figure this mystery out. Some of the facts are true, Some are not. Heres a fun game.
Lets as a group take this link from paul and try to debunk as many as we can??????? If we can not then we can assume that it is fact.
We should do that. Wim, Come up with a history mystery and make it a topic as a challenge. we work on 1 problem at a time till we can cleary state fact or fiction. Then we can have a forum and a site where facts are found and not just speculation. I will shoot the first problem to see how good our fellow members are at finding facts.


Was Scott Hinckley, The brother of John Hinckley supposed to be having dinner with Neil Bush the son of the VPOTUS the night he tried to kill Prez. Reagan? Is this a fact?
Ok we will see. I will start a thread of Truth vs BS.
Peace

[Pennyworth]

4 hours ago....

The recent free-fall in the subprime mortgage market has captured the public's attention and sparked the interest of law enforcement and regulators.

As the stock options backdating scandals begin to wind down, speculation continues to grow that a recession may be looming. Meanwhile, investors have turned their attention to the subprime mortgage industry, their fears helping fuel the recent decline in the stock market.

At the same time, federal regulators and law enforcement agents are also shifting their sights to the subprime market. The recent announcements of investigations by the Department of Justice, the SEC and the Massachusetts Secretary of State may mark the beginning of a long series of inquiries into one of the largest and most complex financial markets.

Mortgage-backed securities have led the growth of the securitization debt market for more than a decade. In the midst of a decline in the housing market, numerous mortgage lenders have filed for bankruptcy protection or declared significant losses as a result of increasing and earlier borrower defaults. Those defaults are now impacting the mortgage-backed securities market.

Rising defaults on mortgages by borrowers with weak credit have triggered repurchase obligations in the complex agreements used to create mortgage-backed securities. Financial intermediaries that purchase mortgages and provide funding to mortgage lenders are exercising stricter scrutiny as they seek to avoid--and offload--bad mortgage loans. Subprime lenders, faced with unexpected demands to repurchase those undesirable mortgages, may be financially crippled.

New Century Financial Corporation (nyse: NEW - news - people ), a major subprime mortgage lender, is a good illustration of the trends roiling the industry. During the first nine months of 2006, New Century has been forced to repurchase hundreds of millions of dollars of mortgage loans. On Feb. 7, 2007, the company announced that it would restate its earnings for the first three quarters of 2006 due to accounting errors in connection with repurchases.

Now, New Century has received a grand jury subpoena in a criminal investigation by the Department of Justice, and also faces a parallel civil investigation by the SEC. Numerous states have barred New Century from making new loans, and are now conducting their own investigations. And the company's shares have been delisted from the New York Stock Exchange.

Wall Street is also in the crosshairs. The Massachusetts secretary of state has ordered two investment banks to turn over documents concerning their analysts' recommendations on subprime lenders such as New Century. The inquiry is focused on whether the banks' positive views were influenced by their financial relationships with the lenders themselves.

The Bush administration's reaction has been to promise swift retribution for subprime lenders that have run afoul of restrictions against predatory lending. The Department of Housing and Urban Development has vowed to step up enforcement actions against lenders who have violated regulations. At the same time, the administration has sought to quell the markets by calling on government sponsored mega-lenders Fannie Mae (nyse: FNM - news - people ) and Freddie Mac (nyse: FRE - news - people ) to ease off on foreclosures by giving borrowers more time to pay on troubled loans.

More investigations will surely follow. In response to a significant downturn in business, regulators and law enforcement typically scrutinize companies that are suffering setbacks to determine whether such setbacks are mere misfortune or criminal malfeasance.

Subprime lenders, as well as the larger financial institutions that have financed and assisted them, would be well served to anticipate that scrutiny and proceed with caution. Their actions will be examined under a microscope, and their response to that examination can be the critical difference in keeping a business problem from exploding into a criminal one.

Individual employees will feel increasing pressure to present a positive picture of the company's current financial situation and future prospects, as well as its history. In the midst of a crisis, it is tempting to try to reassure investors, the government and the public that "everything is all right." Although honest optimism is not a crime, it is tempting to paint an overly rosy picture of the company's financial situation. When the company's statements, in press releases, regulatory filings and comments to the investment community, stray from the facts, the company's woes will only worsen.

The case of former Enron CEO Kenneth Lay is one recent, albeit extreme, example of how an improper response to a crisis can lead to criminal prosecution. In Lay's case, the evidence of his involvement in the initial fraud at Enron was inconclusive at best.

However, when Lay resumed his position as CEO in the midst of Enron's meltdown, he made a series of optimistic public statements that starkly contrasted with the truth about the company's deteriorating condition, and those false statements provided the foundation for the fraud charges of which he was found guilty.

New Century is not Enron, and the subprime collapse may not evolve into the scandal du jour. But companies that find themselves caught up in the flurry of inquiries by law enforcement and regulators should bear in mind the lessons of the past. When there are high-profile business failures, prosecutors will scrutinize executive conduct carefully. As a result, companies and executives should take particular care to ensure the accuracy and candor of all their public statements.

Timothy J. Coleman and Seth C. Farber are co-chairs of the White Collar Crime and Government Investigations Practice Group at Dewey Ballantine LLP. Mr. Coleman specializes in representing corporate and individual clients in criminal and regulatory investigations and related litigation. Mr. Farber focuses on white-collar criminal defense and corporate internal investigations, SEC investigations, securities litigation, corporate governance litigation and litigation associated with mergers and acquisitions. The authors thank Lisa Card, an associate at Dewey Ballantine, for her assistance.

[Pennyworth]

By Tom Purcell
Sunday, March 18, 2007


Let me get this straight. One reason for the default on mortgages is that many people who should never have qualified for a loan got approved anyhow?
For starters.

You're going to have to explain.

Well, it all dates back to 9/11. We'd already been in a recession when the terrorists attacked. To keep the economy from going into a free fall, then Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan lowered interest rates.

Yes, I remember.

People were suddenly able to afford houses they couldn't afford before. Home sales began to shoot up. As demand for housing rose, so did housing values.

Go on.

As housing values climbed, homeowners saw their equity climb. Others decided owning a home was the way to easy wealth, so they began to buy, too.

Which further drove up values?

Exactly. Soon, a frenzy was under way. Bidding wars were breaking out. It was common for sellers to receive multiple offers well beyond their asking price.

That was nuts.

That was human nature. When a big snowstorm is forecast, people rush to the store to hoard all the milk and toilet paper. The housing boom was like that.

It never crossed people's minds that they might be overpaying?

Unfortunately not. It appeared to many people -- even rational, well-educated people -- that the rapid rise in values would never end. That caused speculators to jump into the market, which drove up values even more. It was about then that unqualified buyers jumped into the fray.

Unqualified buyers!

Roughly 25 percent of Americans have a bad credit or unstable employment history. But this didn't stop loan originators from going after them, too. Mortgage brokers and banks get commissions and fees every time they originate a loan -- even risky loans.

Risky loans?

Finance companies created special mortgages -- subprime loans -- for people who didn't qualify for the safer "prime" loans. Because these loans come with greater risks, higher interest rates are charged -- usually 2 or 3 percentage points higher. These loans are extremely profitable, as long as they are paid back.

I still don't see how it was possible.

The Washington Post's Steven Pearlstein explained how. Mortgage people created all kinds of nutty schemes. These included interest-only mortgages, no-money-down mortgages, adjustable-rate mortgages and so on. In some cases, loan applicants didn't even have to provide proof of income.

Didn't the mortgage people worry about defaults?

Pearlstein explains that such loans are often sold to third parties. Thus, the loan originators didn't have to worry about the risk and they still got their commissions and fees.

So unqualified people were given giant loans to buy overvalued houses they couldn't afford? How did they keep up with the payments?

As long as the buying frenzy continued, housing values kept getting pushed to even more insane heights. That allowed homeowners to either sell and cash out or borrow against their rapidly rising equity to get the money they needed to make their monthly payments.

They borrowed money to pay their mortgages!

In some cases. It was a beautiful thing while it lasted. During the past four years, $9.5 trillion in new mortgage debt has been pumped into the housing industry. That money fueled one heck of a party.

But the party is over?

I'm afraid so. According to Pearlstein, the subprime mortgage market is in a meltdown. He said that 1.5 million Americans may lose their homes to foreclosure. And hundreds of homes could be dumped onto a glutted market, further driving down values.

That's not good.

It gets worse. Consider all the jobs that depend on the housing market. Construction companies, cabinet manufacturers, furnishing companies ... an endless number of industries will be hurt as the correction ripples through the economy.

Correction?

That's a term we like to use in the finance business. Translated it means: "Oops, we overdid it again!"

Tom Purcell, a free-lance writer, lives in Mt. Lebanon. E-mail him at TomPurcell@aol.com. You can also visit him on the Web at www.TomPurcell.com

[Pennyworth]

Abolish the Fed

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD



In the House of Representatives, September 10, 2002

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation to restore financial stability to America's economy by abolishing the Federal Reserve. I also ask unanimous consent to insert the attached article by Lew Rockwell, president of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, which explains the benefits of abolishing the Fed and restoring the gold standard, into the record.

Since the creation of the Federal Reserve, middle and working-class Americans have been victimized by a boom-and-bust monetary policy. In addition, most Americans have suffered a steadily eroding purchasing power because of the Federal Reserve's inflationary policies. This represents a real, if hidden, tax imposed on the American people.

From the Great Depression, to the stagflation of the seventies, to the burst of the dotcom bubble last year, every economic downturn suffered by the country over the last 80 years can be traced to Federal Reserve policy. The Fed has followed a consistent policy of flooding the economy with easy money, leading to a misallocation of resources and an artificial "boom" followed by a recession or depression when the Fed-created bubble bursts.

With a stable currency, American exporters will no longer be held hostage to an erratic monetary policy. Stabilizing the currency will also give Americans new incentives to save as they will no longer have to fear inflation eroding their savings. Those members concerned about increasing America's exports or the low rate of savings should be enthusiastic supporters of this legislation.

Though the Federal Reserve policy harms the average American, it benefits those in a position to take advantage of the cycles in monetary policy. The main beneficiaries are those who receive access to artificially inflated money and/or credit before the inflationary effects of the policy impact the entire economy. Federal Reserve policies also benefit big spending politicians who use the inflated currency created by the Fed to hide the true costs of the welfare-warfare state. It is time for Congress to put the interests of the American people ahead of the special interests and their own appetite for big government.

Abolishing the Federal Reserve will allow Congress to reassert its constitutional authority over monetary policy. The United States Constitution grants to Congress the authority to coin money and regulate the value of the currency. The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to delegate control over monetary policy to a central bank. Furthermore, the Constitution certainly does not empower the federal government to erode the American standard of living via an inflationary monetary policy.

In fact, Congress' constitutional mandate regarding monetary policy should only permit currency backed by stable commodities such as silver and gold to be used as legal tender. Therefore, abolishing the Federal Reserve and returning to a constitutional system will enable America to return to the type of monetary system envisioned by our nation's founders: one where the value of money is consistent because it is tied to a commodity such as gold. Such a monetary system is the basis of a true free-market economy.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand up for working Americans by putting an end to the manipulation of the money supply which erodes Americans' standard of living, enlarges big government, and enriches well-connected elites, by cosponsoring my legislation to abolish the Federal Reserve.

WHY GOLD?
By Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
As with all matters of investment, everything is clear in hindsight. Had you bought gold mutual funds earlier this year, they might have appreciated more than 100 percent. Gold has risen $60 since March 2001 to the latest spot price of $326.

Why wasn't it obvious? The Fed has been inflating the dollar as never before, driving interest rates down to absurdly low levels, even as the federal government has been pushing a mercantile trade policy, and New York City, the hub of the world economy, continues to be threatened by terrorism. The government is failing to prevent more successful attacks by not backing down from foreign policy disasters and by not allowing planes to arm themselves. These are all conditions that make gold particularly attractive.

Or perhaps it is not so obvious why this is true. It's been three decades since the dollar's tie to gold was completely severed, to the hosannas of mainstream economists. There is no stash of gold held by the Fed or the Treasury that backs our currency system. The government owns gold but not as a monetary asset. It owns it the same way it owns national parks and fighter planes. It's just another asset the government keeps to itself.

The dollar, and all our money, is nothing more and nothing less than what it looks like: a cut piece of linen paper with fancy printing on it. You can exchange it for other currency at a fixed rate and for any good or service at a flexible rate. But there is no established exchange rate between the dollar and gold, either at home or internationally.

The supply of money is not limited by the amount of gold. Gold is just another good for which the dollar can be exchanged, and in that sense is legally no different from a gallon of milk, a tank of gas, or an hour of babysitting services.

Why, then, do people turn to gold in times like these? What is gold used for? Yes, there are industrial uses and there are consumer uses in jewelry and the like. But recessions and inflations don't cause people to want to wear more jewelry or stock up on industrial metal. The investor demand ultimately reflects consumer demand for gold. But that still leaves us with the question of why the consumer demand exists in the first place. Why gold and not sugar or wheat or something else?

There is no getting away from it: investor markets have memories of the days when gold was money. In fact, in the whole history of civilization, gold has served as the basic money of all people wherever it's been available. Other precious metals have been valued and coined, but gold always emerged on top in the great competition for what constitutes the most valuable commodity of all.

There is nothing intrinsic about gold that makes it money. It has certain properties that lend itself to monetary use, like portability, divisibility, scarcity, durability, and uniformity. But these are just descriptors of certain qualities of the metal, not explanations as to why it became money. Gold became money for only one reason: because that's what the markets chose.

Why isn't gold money now? Because governments destroyed the gold standard. Why? Because they regarded it as too inflexible. To be sure, monetary inflexibility is the friend of free markets. Without the ability to create money out of nothing, governments tend to run tight financial ships. Banks are more careful about the lending when they can't rely on a lender of last resort with access to a money-creation machine like the Fed.

A fixed money stock means that overall prices are generally more stable. The problems of inflation and business cycles disappear entirely. Under the gold standard, in fact, increased market productivity causes prices to generally decline over time as the purchasing power of money increases.

In 1967, Alan Greenspan once wrote an article called Gold and Economic Freedom. He wrote that:
"An almost hysterical antagonism toward the gold standard is one issue which unites statists of all persuasions. They seem to sense – perhaps more clearly and subtly than many consistent defenders of laissez-faire – that gold and economic freedom are inseparable, that the gold standard is an instrument of laissez-faire and that each implies and requires the other. . . . This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights."

He was right. Gold and freedom go together. Gold money is both the result of freedom and its leading protector. When money is as good as gold, the government cannot manipulate the supply for its own purposes. Just as the rule of law puts limits on the despotic use of police power, a gold standard puts extreme limits on the government's ability to spend, borrow, and otherwise create crazy unworkable programs. It is forced to raise its revenue through taxation, not inflation, and generally keep its house in order.

Without the gold standard, government is free to work with the Fed to inflate the currency without limit. Even in our own times, we've seen governments do that and thereby spread mass misery.

Now, all governments are stupid but not all are so stupid as to pull stunts like this. Most of the time, governments are pleased to inflate their currencies so long as they don't have to pay the price in the form of mass bankruptcies, falling exchange rates, and inflation.

In the real world, of course, there is a lag time between cause and effect. The Fed has been inflating the currency at very high levels for longer than a year. The consequences of this disastrous policy are showing up only recently in the form of a falling dollar and higher gold prices. And so what does the Fed do? It is pulling back now. For the first time in nearly ten years, some measures of money (M2 and MZM) are showing a falling money stock, which is likely to prompt a second dip in the continuing recession.

Greenspan now finds himself on the horns of a very serious dilemma. If he continues to pull back on money, the economy could tip into a serious recession. This is especially a danger given rising protectionism, which mirrors the events of the early 1930s. On the other hand, a continuation of the loose policy he has pursued for a year endangers the value of the dollar overseas.

How much easier matters were when we didn't have to rely on the wisdom of exalted monetary central planners like Greenspan. Under the gold standard, the supply of money regulated itself. The government kept within limits. Banks were more cautious. Savings were high because credit was tight and saving was rewarded. This approach to economics is the foundation of a sustainable prosperity.

We don't have that system now for the country or the world, but individuals are showing their preferences once again. By driving up the price of gold, prompting gold producers to become profitable again, the people are expressing their lack of confidence in their leaders. They have decided to protect themselves and not trust the state. That is the hidden message behind the new luster of gold.

Is a gold standard feasible again? Of course. The dollar could be redefined in terms of gold. Interest rates would reflect the real supply and demand for credit. We could shut down the Fed and we would never need to worry again what the chairman of the Fed wanted. There was a time when Greenspan was nostalgic for such a system. Investors of the world have come to embrace this view even as Greenspan has completely abandoned it.

What keeps the gold standard from becoming a reality again is the love of big government and war. If we ever fall in love with freedom again, the gold standard will once more become a hot issue in public debate.

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
Ron Paul Archives

[Pennyworth]

States
damn

On the evening of November 22, 1910, Sen. Aldrich and A.P. Andrews (Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Department), Paul Warburg (a naturalized German representing Baron Alfred Rothschild's Kuhn, Loeb & Co.), Frank Vanderlip (president of the National City Bank of New York), Henry P. Davison (senior partner of J. P. Morgan Company), Charles D. Norton (president of the Morgan-dominated First National Bank of New York), and Benjamin Strong (representing J. P. Morgan), left Hoboken, New Jersey on a train in view of a group of confused reporters, who were wondering why these bankers, representing about one-sixth of the world's wealth, were gathering at this particular place and time and leaving together.

Forbes Magazine founder Bertie Charles Forbes wrote several years later:

"Picture a party of the nation’s greatest bankers stealing out of New York on a private railroad car under cover of darkness, stealthily hieing hundred of miles South, embarking on a mysterious launch, sneaking onto an island deserted by all but a few servants, living there a full week under such rigid secrecy that the names of not one of them was once mentioned, lest the servants learn the identity and disclose to the world this strangest, most secret expedition in the history of American finance. I am not romancing; I am giving to the world, for the first time, the real story of how the famous Aldrich currency report, the foundation of our new currency system, was written... The utmost secrecy was enjoined upon all. The public must not glean a hint of what was to be done. Senator Aldrich notified each one to go quietly into a private car of which the railroad had received orders to draw up on an unfrequented platform. Off the party set. New York’s ubiquitous reporters had been foiled... Nelson (Aldrich) had confided to Henry, Frank, Paul and Piatt that he was to keep them locked up at Jekyll Island, out of the rest of the world, until they had evolved and compiled a scientific currency system for the United States, the real birth of the present Federal Reserve System, the plan done on Jekyll Island in the conference with Paul, Frank and Henry... Warburg is the link that binds the Aldrich system and the present system together. He more than any one man has made the system possible as a working reality."

[Pennyworth]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/22/arts/ ... th.html?hp :Frankly does anyone think its worth this much LOL!!!!!