Econ student needs support

[mike614]

I have a question that I would like to open to the general public here on this forum.  I am a student of economics and I am struggling to keep my cool in  my upper level economics classes.

My professors keeps shutting me down every time I suggest that the Fed Reserve has a monopoly on banking in this country. My professors also laugh at when I suggest that Google has a monopoly.  Even though I present  arguments and facts that are rock solid. If anybody has had this problem please let me know how you didn't freak out in class. I can hardly stand another day of these teachers force feeding this garbage to these sheep for students who buy into this bullshit they are pushing down our throats. I'm trying my absolute hardest to get through these classes so I can get into law school.  Some days I want to to just set my hair on fire and run out of my classroom. Any advice would be appreciated.


Mike

[Viper]

The education you're after only happens in the elite schools, where they get a different education from the rest of us, they learn about real history, where the world is really going in the future and they learn how to manage and control people.
Growing up in their household they will be brought up different too, perhaps some at a young age learning about the occult and topics of the sort general young people wouldn't give a damn about.
If you want to work in their system you're gonna have to learn the bs history they give to the commoners and learn it to the very letter.

[mike614]

Even with my military background and superb grades I can only hope that I get into a law school that beats Ohio State....I was hoping the best part of college was going to be learning information that would in power me, But as it turns out the best part is making my teachers speechless as they wade in there own stupidity.

[PullMyFinger]

Even with my military background and superb grades I can only hope that I get into a law school that beats Ohio State....I was hoping the best part of college was going to be learning information that would in power me, But as it turns out the best part is making my teachers speechless as they wade in there own stupidity. 

As much fun as that sounds(seriously) think about keeping your superior knowledge to yourself long enough to get the paper you need and get the hell away from them.

[mike614]

On Monday I told my teacher Google was a corrupt monopoly she said, "What are you talking about?  Yahoo and other search sites such as Bing have plenty of breathing room. I then asked her to compare the stock price of yahoo ($15 something) to Google ($480 something)  Weird she  stopped calling on me for the rest of the afternoon....

Finger you are correct that getting as far away as possible is best, but keeping my mouth shut while I am there makes me feel horrible.

[PullMyFinger]

It made me feel horrible suggesting it.I hate the notion of go along to get along but some things are situational.You are in an excellent position to do some real good but unfortunately ya gotta have that paper.
Welcome to Prison Planet Forum btw.

[citizenx]

The "Fed" has a legal monopoly on printing money in the U.S at present, if that can't be considered a monopoly on banking by a private consortium, what can?

You are right.

Your professors may not be wrong, they may actually be lying --- first to themselves, and then to you.

You've got my support.

You're one of the few econ. students nowadays to actually learn something -- on your own evidently and despite the best efforts of your would-be educators. You sound like a  smart young person.



Bottom line, keep up the good work.  Keep learning.

[phosphene]

I'm trying my absolute hardest to get through these classes so I can get into law school.

why would you want to do that? hehe. Is the BAR association constitutional, non-constitutional, or un-constitutional?

[constitutional911]

Neither Federal nor a Reserve.

A private cartel controlled in secret by an international elite.

Illegal Constitutionally.

Try to send some details to Infowars, maybe Alex might pickup on your story and give you some coverage either on the website or radio show.

I know he loves to cover issues such as this and has exposed some of the nonsense that goes on in the "education" system.

You can get Infowars contact details on their homepage.

E-mail to Aaron@infowars.com or call them providing details on your predicament.

Your case may be more rampant than most people would like to admit.

So much for the Liberal Arts & Sciences Education that we boast of.

Thanks for your vocal defense of the truth and your courage. We need more such voices.

[Kilika]

The "Fed" has a legal monopoly on printing money in the U.S at present, if that can't be considered a monopoly on banking by a private consortium, what can?

That's not correct I'm afraid. The US Treasury prints the money and the US Mint coin the uh coins.

The only reason the Federal Reserve is involved is because of debt. We budget beyond our income, so we have to go to the Fed and borrow the cash to print because we are broke and are operating in the red, so the Fed approves the loan and then we print the cash, then send it to the Fed, which they in turn lend it back to the US for a fee of course.

By definition the Fed isn't a monopoly because that is not an enterprise open to free market competition. It's more like a government service, even though the Fed is a private for-profit institution.

Also by definition Google isn't a monopoly either. If a person is going into law, they better learn that it's all about letter of law, not opinion. Save the opinions and drama for the jury.

Good advice has been given that if you want to work in the world of law, you better grow some thick skin and get real anal about word use and legal definitions. It's everything in law. The law doesn't care what you think something should say, it only cares what it actually says, word for word, because those words are what the court will listen to, not opinions or moral convictions.

There is a reason why they say, "letter of law". Learn what that means or you'll never make in the legal profession, and learn to leave your heart and emotions in your briefcase, or they will eat you alive, and there's a good chance of having a contempt of court charge in your future. In other words, in law, your forced to compromise values and morals for the sake of letter of law. If your okay with that, go for it. Hope you can sleep good at night.

[kushfiend]

As someone who recently graduated with an Econ degree let me just say that school was the biggest possible waste of time, money and stress. I currently make less than a teacher working full time at a massive Foreclosure law firm where I am the only one with a degree.  I'm just grateful to even have a job. We are in the worst economy this nation has ever seen and they expect us to just pay back these tens o thousands of dollars in 6 months???

We are being culled, college is nothing but a trap. Get out my advice.

[Joe(WI)]

I am reminded of a young idealistic youth, myself.

I've had a lawyer(slimeball more like), tell me first year law is nothing more than getting berated 24-7. It hardens you to the point anyone can say anything to you, about you, and you could care less. I admire your courage, but I don't envy your career. These are "the worst scum of the galaxy." Same lawyer told me about a case he took knowing the defendant was guilty, but the witness was ancient, and delayed until they passed away. Nice guy eh? Also said "Don't worry about being found guilty, EVERYBODY is found guilty."

Until we the people can force lawyers to behave humanely, I'm afraid "legal" will still be a technicality.

[citizenx]

That's not correct I'm afraid. The US Treasury prints the money and the US Mint coin the uh coins.

OK, yes, physically, the Treasury prints the notes, but the Fed "crates" it out of thin air.  The Treasury is then directed to actually print some of the "1's" and "0's" from the virtual world where they were created.

So, technically you are right.

My point is that the Fed as a private consortium of banks has a sole monopoly in the U.S. to create "fiat money".  On that point I am not wrong, but thanks (seriously) for the technical correction.  Hopefully, this is more clear to people now.

It would be better in my opinion if the Treasury did create the money as it did briefly in the era of Lincoln's "greenbacks".  Personally, I would like to see that system re-instituted permanently.  I don't think I am alone here, in saying that (vast understatement).

[phosphene]

The only reason the Federal Reserve is involved is because of debt. We budget beyond our income, so we have to go to the Fed and borrow the cash to print because we are broke and are operating in the red, so the Fed approves the loan and then we print the cash, then send it to the Fed, which they in turn lend it back to the US for a fee of course.

WE dont do anything. CONGRESS borrows money from the federal reserve. Then Congress turns around and calls THEIR credit card bill the national debt.

The Federal Reserve does not need to be ended. If Congress stopped borrowing from it. it would die naturally, alone, under a rock somewhere.

[Kilika]

WE dont do anything.

EXACTLY. And that is the problem that allows Congrees to do what they want. So that means "We" are responsible for the actions of our representatives. And "We" are living above our means as a country because "We" bought into the bs debt-based economy scam.

[Rebelitarian]

The Money Masters.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936&q=The+money+changers&ei=Zd4QSMjvB47YqAKQtJmzBA

Watch this film over the weekend or better yet e-mail it to them.

[phosphene]

"We" are responsible for the actions of our representatives.

uh, no. they are responsible for their own actions. Congress should be in jail. Shit, if congress was begging me for 600 billion dollar loans every other month, I would lend it to them too. Congress is like a child with his parents credit card. you dont take down the credit card company...you punish the child.

[Geolibertarian]

The US Treasury prints the money

False. The US Treasury prints "currency," but that currency does not become "money" (legal tender) until it's been issued by the private banking system, which does so by lending it at interest.

If it were "money" the government was printing, it wouldn't have to borrow it all the time:

       http://wealthmoney.org
       http://www.webofdebt.com
       http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2464321382114136843 (Money As Debt)

An alarming number of Tea Party members seem not to understand this, and I think Austrian School propaganda is the primary reason why.

[Kilika]

False. The US Treasury prints "currency," but that currency does not become "money" (legal tender) until it's been issued by the private banking system, which does so by lending it at interest.

If it were "money" the government was printing, it wouldn't have to borrow it all the time:

       http://wealthmoney.org
       http://www.webofdebt.com
       http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2464321382114136843 (Money As Debt)

An alarming number of Tea Party members seem not to understand this, and I think Austrian School propaganda is the primary reason why.

Well, I'm not going to get onto splitting economic hairs with you, but your being just a tad anal. You got a Blacks Law sitting next to your bed? Technically speaking, there is a difference between money and currency, sort of, but it's more semantics than anything.

If it were "money" the government was printing, it wouldn't have to borrow it all the time:

Dude, we have to borrow because we are operating in the red! It's called debt to income. Just printing money doesn't pay the debt, as evidenced by our failing economy because any money we print has to be borrowed at interest as I said out of a lack of positive cash flow. You have a rather utopian way of thinking towards reality. It would be nice if we were printing money that we didn't have to borrow, but alas, the Federal Reserve System is what we currently have, like it or not.

The only solution is to stop borrowing from the thug banking system, and then get rid of the middle man, the Federal Reserve.

[Geolibertarian]

Well, I'm not going to get onto splitting economic hairs with you, but your being just a tad anal.

On the contrary, I'm merely being factual.

You got a Blacks Law sitting next to your bed? Technically speaking, there is a difference between money and currency, sort of, but it's more semantics than anything.

No it's not. Under the current system, newly-printed Federal Reserve Notes do not become "money" until they've been issued by the private banking system (of which the Fed is the central head).

To "print" is not to "issue." Period. End of story.

Dude, we have to borrow because we are operating in the red! It's called debt to income.

Dude, we have to borrow because under the current system that's the only way any money is allowed to come into circulation in the first place. If no one borrows, there's no money. That's why it's called a debt-based money system.

It might help if you would actually watch the "Money As Debt" documentary I linked to in my previous post.

[EvadingGrid]

The Money Masters.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936&q=The+money+changers&ei=Zd4QSMjvB47YqAKQtJmzBA

Watch this film over the weekend or better yet e-mail it to them.

It is my favourite weapon to wake people up.

Its the right length,
Its a cartoon,
Its easy to "sell" to people.

[Kilika]

That's why it's called a debt-based money system.

Isn't that what I said? Try refreshing your understanding of semantics.

[Geolibertarian]

Isn't that what I said? Try refreshing your understanding of semantics.

That wasn't the point of dispute and you know it. You mistakenly equated "printing" with "issuing" -- even though the former is done by government while the latter is done only by private banks -- and I simply corrected that mistake.

So instead of rolling your eyes, try taking your own advice on "understanding" things.

[Kilika]

There was no dispute, till you chimed in. I just made a comment and you went all anal on technicalities. it was a generalized statement. It wasn't meant to be a dissertation on economics. Some here know more than you give them credit for, but they aren't some kind of definition police. Anybody that is reasonable knows exactly what I meant, whether I used the word "money" or "currency".

Here's exactly what I said...

Technically speaking, there is a difference between money and currency, sort of, but it's more semantics than anything.

See that? I acknowledged the difference, but you ignored it and just exercised your fast knowledge of monetary systems. Sorry, I'm not impressed Geo, and there was no mistake to correct. You just made a big deal out of absolutely nothing. But thanks for the effort all the same.

[phosphene]

Any advice would be appreciated.

I bet you'd get better results if you talk to the proffs in private, during their office hours, instead of trying to call them out in the middle of class.

When you get there, ask them what the difference is between "federal reserve notes" and "lawful money" for me. Id like to hear their analysis.

Federal Reserve Act - Remedy
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9010856874304912516&ei=H8neSp_hMIGSqQPpxYCkAQ&q=Federal+Reserve+Act+Remedy&client=firefox-a#

Summary: Endorsing our checks delivers our funds into the private debt service called the Federal Reserve. We voluntarily agree to use the Federal Reserve system by endorsing our checks. Deposit your checks without signing your name and the bank has to treat your funds as "lawful money"

US CODE: Title 12,411. Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation; redemption
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode12/usc_sec_12_00000411----000-.html

§ 411. Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation; redemption
Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank.

[citizenx]

LOL

That's a good one.  Imagine if we all went down there asking to redeem our dollars for "lawful money".

I would come back just for that if I could.

[Geolibertarian]

I just made a comment and you went all anal on technicalities.

No, you made a false comment, I corrected it, and you went anal on being corrected.  

it was a generalized statement.

No, it was a false statement. Newly-"printed" Federal Reserve Notes do not become "money" until they've been issued by the private banking system. If they haven't been issued, then they're not part of the money supply, and hence not "money."

"The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 authorized the production and circulation of Federal Reserve notes. Although the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP) prints these notes, they move into circulation through the Federal Reserve System."

-- http://www.treas.gov/education/faq/currency/legal-tender.shtml

"Virtually all currency in circulation is in the form of Federal Reserve notes, that is bills printed by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing of the Department of Treasury and issued by the Federal Reserve Banks."

-- http://www.minneapolisfed.org/community_education/teacher/pictures.cfm

If Federal Reserve Notes are "money" the moment they're "printed" by the Treasury, then there wouldn't be any need for them to be "issued" by the privately-owned Federal Reserve Banks. But the fact is, they're not "money" the moment they're printed. The Treasury could print a truck-load of currency next week, yet the money supply would not increase one iota. That's why it's false and misleading to say (as you did) that the Treasury prints "money." Invoking the word "semantics" over and over again doesn't change that.

Here's exactly what I said...

Technically speaking, there is a difference between money and currency, sort of, but it's more semantics than anything.

See that? I acknowledged the difference

No, you dismissed that difference as mere "semantics."  That's like a global warming cultist claiming it's mere "semantics" to say there's a difference between "carbon dioxide" and "carbon monoxide." The term "semantics," in this context, is always meant to imply that the "difference" in question is minor and irrelevant, that way ideologues can go on ignoring that difference when expressing their political views.

Sorry, I'm not impressed Geo,

I don't care if you're "impressed" or not. This isn't about you. This is about not misleading relative newcomers (as monetary flat-earthers from the Austrian School so love to do) into thinking that our money supply is created by the government when it in fact is created by private banks.

and there was no mistake to correct.

Yes there was, but it's obvious you'd sooner say 2+2=5 than swallow your precious ego and admit to having made a false statement, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.