Very awesome. Especially the girls dressed up as boys part. Anarchy is that much more fun with cute girls bending their gender too.

It's a sad commentary that there are people who actually think this way, and that there is at least one here that thinks this is "very awesome."

excluding the "very awesome" part, what is so sad about it?

The completely upside down moral commentary that waxes poetic about how it is right to steal and wrong to work for a living, for starters.

It isn't wrong to work for a living and I don't think that is said anywhere in the clip. It is wrong to work under something (a corporation isn't a person, although the law sees them that way) who wishes to do nothing more than exploit as much labor out of you at a minimal cost and refuses to see the humanity behind each individual. Is it wrong to steal from something that isn't human or even alive? Something that doesn't feel pain or love or fear or happiness? Is it wrong that these institutions steal so much of what should be the realm of the public? I think it is the morality of most consumers that is upside down, not this clip.

It's wrong to steal period. You are going through the same rationalization of a crime as the video did. It is no wonder that you can't see the video for what it is when you have become a moral reprobate yourself.

How about nazis? Would it be wrong for an oppressed person in Germany to steal from the Nazis? I know it sounds silly, but I really want your answer.

(argument rule #73 = when faced with someone arguing moral absolutes, always bring out an over the top nazi example to prove a point)

What is that they're stealing? A television set like in the video? Then, yeah, it's still wrong. Food because they have none? Go for it - to live is of higher moral value than not stealing. Munitions or other equipment with which to thwart or overthrow the Nazi regime? Go for it - to save lives is of higher moral value than them all.

So before, "It's wrong to steal period."

compared with

"Go for it"

In the first case, you say there is NEVER a justifiable reason to steal. In the next (which is only an hour and a half later), you concede that there is and present cases where it is ok and endorse the action.
sounds like someone has completely upside down morals...

or maybe your morality is simply relative to the point of view that you as an individual human being have, just like the rest of us. After all, wouldn't a nazi see it as morally wrong to steal food or munitions from them? And wouldn't someone stealing from a corporation based on the ideas presented in the clip see it as right or morally neutural to do so?

p.s. she did steal food for her and her child in the video. Is that wrong?

Hmmmm...Looks as if the one BIG naysayer has some skeletons in his or her closet. I got one for ya."Judge not lest ye also be judged"-or how about..."All things are lawfull but not all things are profitable"
These are from the Bible. Now here's one from me-"If you are willing to accept responsibility for the many possible outcomes of ANY action, then....Go For It!'

By the way Grog Passer...Touche'...I'll HAVE ta remember the Nazi Bomb. I wish we could remember to remind folks of the Nazi experience with regaurds to the back-assward, arcane, medival, and counter-evolutionary nature of the enemies of the human race...i.e. ANYONE WHO DOES NOT HOLD ALL MUSLIMS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACTIONS OF THE FEW RADICALS AMOUNG THEM.

and to add to your "i.e." ANYONE WHO DOES NOT HOLD ALL AMERICANS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACTIONS OF THE FEW POWERFUL LEADERS THEY HAVE ELECTED, SUPORTED, AND RE-ELECTED.

You cannot say one is worse than the other. They are both bad and both leading us to some pretty screwed up global political situations.

PTG:

My position did not change, you extracted statements out of context. In the first context, we were talking about normal life in a normal society and the rule is that it is wrong to steal period, even food. That is a general context and it is the context in which the video is set. From this general context, you wanted my thoughts on a specific. In the specific context of Nazi Germany we're dealing with an issue that is far more important than property, we're dealing with life and death. In the specific, one must do whatever one can in order to survive. It is not possible to derive a moral maxim from the extraordinary situation in the specific that can then be applied to the general. In the specific, stealing food to survive is the only option, therefore it must be done. In the general, there are many options one has available to obtain food - work, for one, and for one who cannot or refuses to work, there is a soup kitchen. Therefore in the general, stealing is not necessary and "it is wrong to steal period."

chogie:

You must be talking to me, but I can't for the life of me understand your point. And what makes you think that would I give a rat's ass about Christian Bible verses? Do you mean to say that it is impossible for one to argue for morality if one is not a Christian? Well, I'm not a Christian and have no use for Christianity, but I believe that to shun morality is to discard one of the unique aspects that makes us human and civilized.

peretz:
I didn't take your comments out of context. One minute you said there was "never" a reason to steal, then you agreed with a reason I gave. You can talk about specifics and generalizations, but a specific would have to fit into a generalization for that generalization to be true. Where 'p' = the proposition 'it is morally ok to steal'
You cannot have 'p' and '~p'. You can have 'p' and sometimes '~p'.

And what makes you think this is a normal society? Have you looked around lately? My point being, I'm sure the Germans found life under the Nazis to be quite "normal." It's all about perspective.

Look at it this way - a corporation is created entirely for the purpose of profit. It doesn't care for the individual, it doesn't think, care about the environment, life, death, or anything else that a living thing does. The only purpose of a corporation is to turn things into little green pieces of paper for the share holders, without self-destructing - no set of morals are needed. However, they are granted the same rights as the individual. And then they start controlling vast quantities of land. And then they silence any oposition to them. They push aside and bury criticisms with a public relations department. They bombard you with advertisements invading your mental space that should be private. They hijack the culture replacing it with meaningless junk that will never fullfill the needs of human hapiness. and on and on and on...

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that falls under the category of "extraordinary situation."

lol why are you tring to have a realy over the top serouse discusoin on a vidoe side post bord i meen ok its intresting to hear peoples points of view and what not but if you are going to try and have a realy fine detaild argument then u r better writing a short papper on it stating all your facts and resionings ore u can just witter on for ages never hearing eather persons argument properly.

i thought clip was ok i dident like alot of the editing and camra work i think it was good becuse it provided a counter argument to a submisoin to a situation we are born into. woman in clip was ok but not my typ and i hate women with tashes fake ore real.

Expired in Queue (4 day limit)

*save

Saving this video from queue deletion, sending it to the top of the queue for one more try. Originally submitted on Wednesday 20th September 2006 (save called by gold star member djsunkid)

Expired in Queue - 4 day limit.

aw... i wish i had been here for the save... just got hooked back on the sift.

*save

Saving this video from queue deletion, sending it to the top of the queue for one more try. Originally submitted on Tuesday 3rd April 2007 (save called by gold star member bizinichi)

um...I sure hope that everybody in this thread realizes that civilization is not an absolute - that it can and must be changed or disarmed if enough of the population agrees that it should.

This video, very simply, shows that basic form of dissidence in action.

It's interesting to think, and an interesting argument that, when people were not organized into this "civilized" world, they spent far less time, and much much much less effort to survive. Sure, there were risks that could get them killed, but are they all that different from today?

In modern civilization(think about this one), you could be killed by any number of man-made things - and what's more to think about - ALL of us can be killed by, essentially, one single technology that we have created, under the premise of an existing set of civilizations(think Cold War).

So...what benefit do we get from organizing ourselves(voluntarily, albeit forcefully nowadays, since we're born and indoctrinated into this method of organization) into a civilization?

What benefit do we receive by allowing a small group of people to control the method of currency they gave us, and convinced us of the value it holds?

What benefits do we gain by voluntarily subjecting ourselves to the slavery that is this method of organization, a slavery where we pay back to the people that gave us our currency 1/3 of that which we earned, and then continue to pay about 5%-6% of that back whenever we actually buy anything, after we've paid back that 1/3?(in a form of organization where, even if we do agree with it's constitution, there's no actual constitutional declaration that taxes must be paid evenly across the United States, on money earned through the fair trade of effort for wages)

That's what this video tries to explain to those that know nothing else outside of the current method of organization - that there is a way out, that we do not need the excesses we have, and that since we've helped, so graciously I might add, to allow those corporations to exist in our method of organization so efficiently, that it's not actually all that morally deficient for us to sometimes take back from them.

It is, as many point out, democracy and the fair market system in action...for a nation that isn't actually a democracy, but rather a democratic Republic.

I sometimes think that people forget that one part of the Constitution we live under - that this is not supposed to be a country where 51% of the people choose how 49% should live, but that we have certain inalienable rights that can not be taken away, just due to inheritance through citizenship.

awesome video, awesome premise, dangerous practice. Getting caught shoplifting is probably not worth the maximum monetary gain of undertaking the practice. hour-per-hour (slave wages from demon corp or not) and considering that you WILL get caught some day, it's not worth it.

Use every one of your dollars as a vote. If you have no other choice (ie poverty automobile) then don't consider $1 a vote (must spend on gasoline can't help it!) but in all other cases buy quality, local and organic and as little as possible. Avoid purchasing anything from China for example.

if you're ballsy enough you can go ahead and shoplift once in a while, but don't get greedy and don't get caught!

Stealing from a corporation is not stealing from a faceless entity, it's stealing from a group of people. For a public corporation, you'd be stealing from the share-holders. Sure, it may not seem as bad to steal 1 penny from 1 million people as it is to steal $10k from 1 person, but imagine what would happen if everybody started doing it. We are better off keeping such people behind bars

...if everybody started doing it?...very interesting thought, indeed - if everybody started doing it, wouldn't that essentially be a vote by everybody AGAINST the monetary system as a whole?

I mean, if corporations like the Federal Reserve were willing to trade with the people of this country fairly(i.e. - where wages earned = wages kept, and the value of a dollar could not be altered by some arbitrary amount of people deciding that it should be), well then there wouldn't be much of a reason for a person willing and able to work to survive not to do so.

Do you suggest to put the directors of the Federal Reserve in jail for increasing the monetary supply(when they do), and thus STEALING a percentage of the monetary value the people of the United States lawfully earned? Same thing, really - except that they, as a corporation, are under no legal obligation to the people of the United States NOT to devalue the dollar when they so desire - only to guarantee their own profits, which they most certainly do.

Woot! it made it! Well done.

The video doesn't say anything about monetary economy, the author is complaining about the "exchange economy". IE

"Shoplifting is the refusal of the exchange economy."
and
"I'm taking what I need without giving anything up"

It's an echo of a compelling (and naive) philosophy of "take from the rich, give to the poor". One could be excused for taking it as an ideal 200 years ago, but advocating it today, after it was tried unsuccessfully many times is just dumb. For instance look at the "dekulakization" effort in 1933 Russia when rich farmers were robbed and their property given "to the people", with 30 million peasants starving as a result.

Rich farmers were rich for a reason -- they were good at managing crops/stocks. It's the same with corporations -- they are good at making products people want.

As far as the US monetary supply controlled by the directors of Central Bank, what's the problem exactly? I faced the 1000% inflation in Russia firsthand, now *that* was a problem. And look at Argentian currency crisis of 2000's. When you put things in context, the Central Bank is doing it's job quite well.

Currency decisions are made by a small group of people, that could in "theory" make the policy for their own good, but what's the alternative? Do you want people like in the clip below deciding when to print more money? The woman said currency in UK is "American money", lol

http://www.videosift.com/video/Why-are-the-American-so-clever-Did-you-say-stupid

You're absolutely correct - this video does portray the refusal of the exchange economy.

I did not make myself clear - I was not speaking about the video, by my statement, nor did I mean to imply(however such implication was made) that I support the system of "take from the rich, give to the poor."

I was talking about the widespread implications of such a choice - I do not believe that people could continue such a system of "steal necessities simply because you feel you should," even if, out of impossible coincidence, many or all people around the country did choose to do so - they would need to form some type of exchange economy.

i.e. - Would the rich really allow themselves to have their globally-recognized resources/commodities taken away for any length of time at all?

The example above continues with my next musing - essentially: "why do the poor and middle-class tolerate their earning's devaluation?"

A devaluation, like the one currently being proposed by the World Bank(of around 50%, which, by the way, I do support), can essentially change the average American family's income from around $53,000 per year to around $26,500 per year.

For those that are not millionaires(a large percentage of the country, I assure you), this will spell disaster - they have become so dependent on foreign imports, just to survive, that a 50% devaluation will affect them dramatically. If the local industries refuse to drop their prices, as may easily happen, this country may easily be plunged into poverty.

This are many reasons that I oppose the existance of the Federal Reserve System. As I'm sure you're aware, the Federal Reserve was established within the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

Since the structure of the Fed is little more than that of a corporation whose chairman is chosen by the President, the choices within this corporation are by the representatives of the member banks. Much of those representatives(the entire list is kept quite secret, so I may be wrong on this one - If you happen to find such a list, please post it here) are not citizens of this country, therefore, the value of the USD will not always be in their interests.

Putting my concerns about internal manipulation of the monetary supply aside for a moment(because I will agree that internal manipulation is most likely NOT the problem, however it did cause one very notable depression as well documented by author Milton Friedman), there are also the issues of fractional reserve lending and central bank interest rates to contend with.

I agree that the people shown in the video you posted are very much NOT the idealistic people to make such economic decisions.

I do not agree that the central bank is doing it's job well, however. In the past, the value of a country's money was based on the resources of the country - a reserve of gold, or a reserve of silver that could be increased or decreased as more mines were found and drilled.

Such a system would be considered archaic, by today's standards, as the rush for gold and silver is far over, but a reserve based system, in general, would be far less prone to any such manipulation. It would also insure that the country's currency is limited by its' commodities' values - be they mineral values, or even exportable human resources(as is the case with highly populated countries around the world).

A corporation is not required to keep the sovereignty of it's host nation in it's best interests, nor is it required to establish a system of value to benefit the people that give such a system inherent value.

i.e. - basing a form of currency on faith is to forming a religion around that currency as basing a form of currency on worldwide geopolitical and commodity value is to assignment of that currency to the population that SHOULD be responsible for it.

Russia had much worldwide geopolitical and commodity value when it's currency faced such a devaluation(as far as I know, Russia still does), so what was the root cause of its devaluation?

Why do currencies whose host countries have little worldwide geopolitical and commodity value, or almost none at all, have a world-recognized form of currency at all(especially ones that do not intend to trade on the world market)?

Not sure how or why the World Bank would cause 50% devaluation of the dollar. US Government could cause such devaluation by creating money out of thin air (that's what caused Russian hyper-inflation). But why would that help the banks? It would hurt them by decreasing the value of their domestic investments. The bottom line is that inflation is bad for everybody.

As far as us government not doing a good job by mismanaging our currency, look at it in perspective. In 1993, Yugoslavian currency experienced hyperinflation in which prices increased 5 quadrillion percent in the period of 4 months. By comparison, US prices go up about 1% in that period of time. So US government's monetary policy is 5 quadrillion times better than it could've been
http://www.rogershermansociety.org/yugoslavia.htm

The World Bank is not causing it - they have recommended it, and it's not out of thin air, either - it is a devaluation that has been needed for quite a while.

As the corporations in the United States vie for cheaper labor and cheaper goods, brought on by many things including, but not limited to, a retailer-based competitive market(where retailers make demands upon the manufacturers of the goods consumed in the U.S.), labor and manufacturing go elsewhere. Currently, much of the manufactured consumer products sold in the United States are made in countries like China, where the workforce is incredibly larger than here in the United States.

As such, the cost of labor in the United States must balance out with that of the rest of the world, as should the cost of goods sold here - I've actually been thinking about moving to India for that very reason. For what I currently make, here in the United States, I do not make enough to purchase land, or a house - if I had a family, I would most certainly not be able to feed them without taking on a second job. But, many of my employers hire outsourced individuals from India that I work with quite directly.

A group of 6 people to do my job in India, makes, total, a little less than what I make per year, and with that amount, they can afford to feed their families, and even afford to buy a house. Much outsourcing is going to countries where there are higher populations, because the labor force is much cheaper.

For this reason, the American economy must either lower it's cost of living, as well as the value of it's currency(as, if it does not devalue it's currency, it faces stark competition on the global market), or be subject to having most of it's productive workforce go unutilized, as the jobs go to other countries. Thus, the World Bank made their recommendation.

The global currency market will balance out on population, if anything, now.

I'm sure that you are aware that the majority of banks within the United States are not as invested in companies within the United States as they have been, in prior years - if anything, the amount they make from their foreign investments will balance out what they lose from their domestic investments, or as Citibank, and two other well known banks from England have shown(sadly, I do not remember their names right now, but all three banks were recently in a quite-underpublished article on AP), they will just move their headquarters to China, as they have now done.

My guess is that those internationally-recognized banks will more than make up for their losses, no matter what happens - or they wouldn't be moving HQ to China...but that's just me.

In perspective, sure - in 1993, even until today(before the 50% devaluation has taken place), the United States has done relatively well, and will continue to do so, even after devaluation. If the Federal Reserve plays their cards right, most Americans won't even know that the devaluation has happened, but if you want some evidence for it happening right now, just look at the price of the Silver commodity.

In December of 2006, the price of the Silver commodity was around $9 per troy ounce. Last I checked, it had raised to $13 to $15 per troy ounce. That most certainly shows something quite difficult to ignore happening, just by itself.

(p.s. - the government does not manage the money supply in this country - I urge you to look up the history and organization of the Federal Reserve, but I will tell you the same as the Federal Reserve itself will - The Federal Reserve is a group of 12 corporations who report to 8 individuals - the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and 7 members of the Board of the Federal Reserve. What's interesting is that, in the history of it's existence, it has never ONCE been audited.

And I quote, taken directly from the Cleveland branch of the Fed[ http://www.clevelandfed.org/about/historyfrs.cfm ]:

"The Federal Reserve System has four major components:

* 12 individually chartered corporations called Federal Reserve Banks
* Member commercial banks in each District that contribute capital to the Reserve Banks and receive dividends
* The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, a federal government agency that exercises general supervision over the Reserve Banks
* The Federal Open Market Committee, the main body for carrying out monetary policy."
)

Who cares about the price of silver? The important prices are for things that people buy on a day-to-day basis, so called "consumer price index", and that's what "inflation" figures usually reflect. US inflation is around 3% per year, which means that dollar devalues by 3% per year for average consumers (as opposed to people who buy silver every day)

Federal Reserve Board of Governors is appointed by the president and approved by the Congress. Also the governors must report to the Congress, which can alter their responsibilities by a statute. So while the Congress can't directly tell the Federal Reserve what to do, they can enact a law to change this.

Why haven't they changed it? Because it's been doing so well perhaps? There's not much to complain about (unless you are a silver buyer, apparently)

Silver is an international commodity. I.e. - as the value of the U.S. Dollar goes down, it's value will seem to go up, because the amount of silver we have IN the commodities market does not change much. It is, therefore, a VERY good indicator(along with the prices of Gold and Platinum), of what the USD is doing relative to other currencies.

Concerning the Federal Reserve - the Board of Governors is an independent government agency. The President appoints the members of the Board, as well as the chairman, for a term usually exceeding his own term - and there are no processes within the government for audit of the Board - only a single reference to the ability of the President to remove a member "with cause" - also, the congress has no say in who gets chosen. The Board is required to provide a report to the Speaker of the House of Representatives once every year, and that's it.

Why haven't they changed it? You ask a lot of interesting questions, but this one I will respond to with a question, hopefully maybe to get your interest piqued in economic literature - have you ever heard of an economic coup?

Before you dismiss that question as ludicrous, I would like you to read Milton Friedman's "Monetary History of the United States, 1867 - 1960." It's a 900 page book, but it's incredibly informative about how the financial systems of the United States are and have been run. I think you'll be surprised to find out how one country can rule over another without ever having gone to that country, especially if you think for a minute that the Federal Reserve is a government institution.

I'm not saying that it does not have ties with the government, but if you look at the structure of the Federal Reserve, and the people that helped to write the Federal Reserve Act, I think you may notice some things about it that you are incredibly misinformed about - I don't know who told you that the Federal Reserve had any responsibilities to the government of the United States, but I can only presume that they have not read the act that mandated it's formation, or paid attention to the structure of it - the 12 Federal Reserve Banks are owned by private member banks that make dividends off of the corporation's activity, from their own investments. Is it really that hard to understand?

A good reason for "Why haven't they changed it?"...from me, this is what you'll get - Dependency and apathy. Dependency on the part of the government because they owe so much money to the Fed, and apathy on the part of the people for assuming that "Federal Reserve" somehow implies that our central bank is a government agency or even has accountability to the government. These same people somehow walk past "Federal Express" trucks almost every day and don't even realize that the delivery company, "Federal Express," has more accountability to the people and the government than the corporation that is our central bank does.

Much of the FRA of 1913 insulated them from that accountability.

Federal Reserve board of governors reports to the Congress once a year(you can see their reports here http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/rptcongress/).
Also the Congress can request the presence of Fed Reserve governors in person. Just just google Greenspan/Congress and you'll find transcripts of Congressional meetings with him. So you can see that the view that the Fed is somehow a shady isolated entity is misleading today (maybe it wasn't when Milton wrote his book)

The Congress can amend/change/curtail the Fed's responsibilities through a statute, or dissolve it completely. Given such power that the government has over the Fed, one could see that it would try to serve the purpose assigned to it, which is to provide economic stability.

As far as depending on Fed because the govt owes them money...come on, the government *makes* money. If the dependency was a problem, they could print enough money to pay off the Fed.

During World War II some governments did just that, they printed money to finance their war costs. US instead borrowed money. It might seem strange for the US government to "borrow dollars" when all the dollars in circulation are created by the US government. In reality there's not much difference between "borrowing" and creating more money, since the government still got the same amount of extra work out of it's citizens.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/fract/sect16.htm

"Any Federal Reserve bank(i.e. - any bank that is a member of the Federal Reserve) may make application to the local Federal Reserve agent for such amount of the Federal Reserve notes hereinbefore provided for as it may require. Such application shall be accompanied with a tender to the local Federal Reserve agent of collateral in amount equal to the sum of the Federal Reserve notes thus applied for and issued pursuant to such application."

"Any Federal Reserve bank may at any time reduce its liability for outstanding Federal Reserve notes by depositing with the Federal Reserve agent its Federal Reserve notes, gold certificates, Special Drawing Right certificates, or lawful money of the United States(please notice how 'Federal Reserve notes' and 'lawful money of the United States' are separate)."

Yes, Congressional meetings with him - "Greenspan asks Congress to hold off on tax cutting." They didn't exactly request his presence. He went there to request something from them. What meetings are you speaking about? Here's what I've found for your search term, and it includes no time(within the first 6 pages at least) that the Congress specifically requested Greenspan's presence, only articles pertaining to his specific requests from Congress when he has chosen to meet with them. Maybe you should google it yourself before informing me to.

http://www.google.co
m/search?q=greenspan%2Fcongress&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

I urge you to read Milton Friedman's book before attempting to continue with me, because most everything you've said within the last three paragraphs of your statement is directly addressed within his book, including how much power the government really has over the Fed.

You're convinced that the government makes money - why? In the Act itself, it is CLEARLY stated that Federal Reserve banks must exchange collateral for the notes they receive - do you know what that collateral usually is? In many cases, the collateral are the land deeds with enough value to cover the value of the Federal Reserve notes the member banks want - and yes, even the United States government must make that collateral.

Perhaps "lawful money of the United States" is what you are talking about when you say "the government *makes* money." In that case, I'd like to ask how many Silver, Gold, or Platinum American Eagle coins you own, and where you have used them, or how many Kennedy five dollar bills( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11110 ) you own, and where you have used them? Technically speaking, those are the only forms of "lawful money of the United States" left in circulation today, whereas the Kennedy notes, under Executive Order 11110, were backed by silver, and the American Eagle coins ARE made of the metals that back them(in high purity, valued by the troy ounce - check http://www.monex.com for more information). Please note that the value of prior silver and gold-backed notes was repealed by the Nixon Administration.

Some countries may have printed money, sure - even the Federal Reserve did, and, in the meantime they gained a good amount of land and value in other commodities because of it - as a matter of fact, if you haven't noticed, War in general is a big money-making venture, by itself. And collateral must be traded for the amount of notes that is placed into the American economy, by the Federal Reserve Act itself(as seen above). Why do you think the United States initiates so many wars?

Here's a couple of reports
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/hh/2005/february/testimony.htm

You can see that the chairman regularly reports to the Congress to inform them how well the Fed is doing. If the Fed is not doing it's job properly, the Congress has the power to change the way Fed works or to dissolve it completely by amending FRA

If polite requests don't work, they can always subpoena them. Like here for instance http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/06/house.iraq/index.html

Also, Friedman's book is 50 years old. Maybe when Friedman wrote it, law makers were afraid to subpoena the Fe, and let it run wild, but that doesn't seem to run true now

I've read the reports, and the testimony that every Chairman gives concerning the Fed's activity. Please realize that every public corporation is required to give a report QUARTERLY, which is why I state that the Fed has less oversight - it goes to Congress whenever it CHOOSES to, and produces a report annually. What public corporation do you know of that could get away with reporting it's activities only once per year(especially a corporation that is so incredibly central to our economy as the central bank of the United States is)?

Also, please notice that the article you cite does not describe a subpoena for the Fed to explain itself, but for the Fed to provide flow information for the Development Fund for Iraq. It is a third party provider of statistics to be used as evidence, and certainly not suspect to anything. Maybe you would be the better person to find information on exactly how many subpoenas have been issued against the Fed as suspect in a criminal complaint. When you find them, please post them here.

Please - again, I'll urge you - read Milton Friedman's book, "Monetary History of the United States, 1867 - 1960," before you blindly dismiss it as "out of date" - it's still a major part of most economics classes for a reason(yes, even being 50 years old).

This is a good speech from our current Fed Chairman, Ben Bernanke, describing the importance of "Monetary History of the Federal Reserve" on current economic theory: http://www.federalreserve.gov/BOARDDOCS/SPEECHES/2002/20021108/defau
lt.htm

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Great thread.

Theft by Deception - Explanation and History of United States Tax Law

Good stuff.

Oh hey - yaroslavvb - good documentary detailing the structure of the Federal Reserve:

Fiat Empire - Why the Federal Reserve is Unconstitutional

OK, I've put it down on my "to-watch list". My current view on it is that people worry too much about what "can" happen as opposed to what "does" happen. Fed Reserve could in theory sabotage US economy, but so far, US economy has been as stable as that of other developed countries, and that's what the purpose of Fed Reserve is. Issues like enrichment of certain individuals are quite minor in comparison with the stability of the overall economy

I agree, but I will note that usually whatever "can" happen usually "does."

That's why I think about it - because, frankly, I don't like the idea that, for people who are already in such prominent positions, they should become even more prominent because of unfortunate circumstances that people are forced to go through. That was really the first thing I noticed about having a private, central bank though, as it's been happening for decades and people always seem to be able to handle more bad things happening to them.

What I think about more often is what will happen when people begin to reject that private, central bank - even in the smallest amounts - i.e. - imagine if a certain percentage of the population decided to start paying for things, even wages, in silver coin(I know it sounds crazy). How would the Federal Reserve react? I mean, it would be a decision by the people, but if the private bank wanted to, it could cause a depression just to make the claim that silver coinage would HURT our economy, even though silver coinage can be quite practical(and is actually still minted these days - but if you want to pay with it, you have to keep up on it's dollar value per troy ounce).

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Wednesday, April 25th, 2007 3:49am PDT - promote requested by eric3579.

*law
*music

Adding video to channels (Law, Music) - requested by Zonbie.

*shortfilms

Adding video to channels (Shortfilms) - requested by Zonbie.