patrick.net

Onvacation says

I know Lincoln did not care much for the negros,

Maybe hid did not "like" Negros, but he did not like slavery either. The charter of the Republican Party, which formed in 1850 and Lincoln led, had in it written explicitly that a main platform was the abolition of slavery.

HeadSet says

Maybe hid did not "like" Negros, but he did not like slavery either. The charter of the Republican Party, which formed in 1850 and Lincoln led, had in it written explicitly that a main platform was the abolition of slavery.

Exactly. The reason we don't have the Whigs anymore is all but wholly because of Slavery. On almost every other issue, Whiggery and Republicanism were in concord.

richwicks says

@Onvacation - BTW - do you teach the Rust programming language? Somebody convinced me to get into it, it's really not terrible which I can't say about many languages.

I picked it up recently. To me if programming languages were people Rust would be the autistic kid.

just_passing_through says

richwicks says

@Onvacation - BTW - do you teach the Rust programming language? Somebody convinced me to get into it, it's really not terrible which I can't say about many languages.

I picked it up recently. To me if programming languages were people Rust would be the autistic kid.

I'm picking up now. It seems to be extremely portable and platform independent (so far). It's nice that is has a build system included with the language itself. I've not gotten too far into it yet, but it's a lot less tedious than C so far. https://www.redox-os.org/ seems (mildly) interesting as well. Bringing a new operating system into the world is very challenging today but I think there's room for one, if it can be much smaller than Linux and more easily ported. It runs on a microkernel, which adds overhead but pffft, I don't know if that matters so much today. Everything runs in userspace, including the drivers.

The compiler error messages are well done.

Onvacation says

I'd like to see that evidence.

Here's a quick introduction to it, start at 13 minutes in:


original link

Ignore the crazy graphics and just listen.

HeadSet says

Maybe hid did not "like" Negros, but he did not like slavery either.

Lincoln's objection to slavery centered quite a bit around the idea that black people shouldn't live among white people, and he was worried about the dilution of the white race. Basically, he wanted them out of the country.

https://rudy.substack.com/p/pimco-is-a-literal-vampire-potbelly

All you have to do to suck up all the money in the world is to get tipped off by the Fed about coming rate increases or decreases.

The bond market is far larger than the stock market, and the bond market moves pretty mechanically in response to interest rate changes.

HunterTits says

Federal Reserve is what the call a 'quasi government agency'.

It is completely private, owned by foreign interests.

Misc says

but I doubt anyone will be able to point to any tax filings made by the Federal Reserve.

Of course not, the IRS didn't exist until after the current central bank was created. They are the collection and enforcement arm. Ohh, you assumed the IRS was a legitimate government agency...

Blue says

Central banks are part of the gov in every country.

Yes and the only certainty is death and taxes. The only investments are dollar denominated assets, you cannot run an economy using gold and silver, the more Federal Reserve notes we have, the richer we are(regardless of prices). You're masters have taught you well.

RandalRay says

Abraham Lincoln and John F Kennedy both tried to end the Federal Reserve.

Lincoln used worthless fiat to finance his war. That is the essential function of central banks. Worse, he moved power from the states to the federal government, further cementing central bank power.

Kennedy had no intention of ending the Fed. I used to think the same thing, but his silver act was actually in the Fed's best interests. See Corbett for a thorough explanation.

ad says

How Big Banks Fought Jackson, Killed Lincoln, and Caused the Civil War

Jackson assassination attempt is real, last man to revoke a central bank charter. Lincoln assassination does appear to be more than just pissed of Southerner's, Booth had some interesting ties.

HeadSet says

Maybe hid did not "like" Negros, but he did not like slavery either. The charter of the Republican Party, which formed in 1850 and Lincoln led, had in it written explicitly that a main platform was the abolition of slavery.

Lincoln has been quoted in multiple speeches saying he did not give a shit about ending slavery, only about preserving the Union. Slavery is the tale that was sold to cover the massive breach of the Constitution when secession was not allowed. It was also used to try and make Southerner's forget about Reconstruction. It failed. The south adamantly hates central government, and always will.

Slavery has existed for thousands of years, but only a hundred in the US. It still exists in Africa today. Only racists buy the slavery angle to the Civil War.

https://gettr.com/post/p1lxow70b3d

Steve Bannon: The Federal Reserve Is the Biggest Scam They Have

"0.5% of the citizens of this country own more assets than the bottom 90%. That's all happened over the last ten years since 2008."

"We don't need to audit the Fed; we need to end the Federal Reserve! The Federal Reserve has usurped its power and the power of the American people and our elected representatives. And no, they do not have the consent of the governed. We will not comply, we will not submit, and it must be ended."

The reason Ron Paul always pushed for an audit, the results would lead to it's abolishment.

https://rudy.substack.com/p/the-fed-is-government-its-much-more

Another very illuminating interview with former Fed trader Joseph Wang…

"They're definitely in their own world. The Fed does have a small army of economists. The typical Fed senior economist career path is kindergarten to PhD to the Fed, and become a Fed lifer."

"Everyone who said inflation would be transitory and contributed to these policy errors - I'm sure they all work at the Fed still, so there's really no accountability."

"The people who have a lot of influence on monetary policy and research - these people don't really have any real-world experience. They've never traded anything, they've never worked in the private sector, they've never ran anything..."

"Their experience is limited. It comes through textbooks mostly, so that's part of the reason why I think that some of the research and some of the things that come out of the Fed don't seem to make a lot of sense..."

"The incentives aren't there - ever - to do a very good job. That's kind of what happens at the Fed."

"Many smart & motivated people join & learn a ton & then they leave. The bottom line is that if you're a company that doesn't have profit or loss & can never fail, there's really no point in trying to retain people. You become a place where people sit around & collect paychecks."

"The people who eventually rise up to decision levels at the Fed, they tend to be there almost completely on the strength of tenure, whereas everyone else who could leave would go into the private sector and make a lot more money and be judged by what they can do."

"There's this huge negative selection there [at the Federal Reserve] & I think it's really concerning because the Fed is such a powerful institution, yet many of the people who make these decisions don't really seem to have the knowledge or expertise that is suitable to the job."

Gordon Johnson: "Is there a fear of inflation at the Fed, or do you think they just don't care?" Wang: "Well, they say they care a lot, but I don't know what's in their head."

“Everyone who said inflation would be transitory and contributed to these policy errors - I'm sure they all work at the Fed still, so there's really no accountability."

Without accountability, "from an incentive perspective there's no reason to really care whether or not you're doing a good job. So if we have high inflation, if we have to induce a recession to get inflation under control, that really doesn't affect anyone at the Fed." - Wang

"They'll still have their jobs. They'll still get their increases, they'll still have their guaranteed pension, so there's an incentive problem here that's not easy to solve."

https://rudy.substack.com/p/the-great-disorder

In our age of paper money with its accompanying kaleidoscope of paper, plastic, and electronic credit instruments, it is difficult to imagine an industrial society, like the German Empire before 1914, in which 52 to 65 percent of monetary circulation consisted of coinage. The daily transactions of most Germans were conducted with ten- and twenty-mark gold coins; one- to five-mark silver coins; five-, ten-, and twenty-five-pfennig nickel coins, and one- and two-pfennig copper coins. The Reichsbank, which had been assigned the task of “regulating the circulation of money in the entire territory of the Reich, facilitating currency transactions, and caring for the utilization of available capital,” viewed this dependence on coinage with increasing disapproval. The dependence on coins and even on cash transactions with paper money was proving to be an ungainly way of doing business. As international tensions mounted in the prewar years, the Reichsbank also considered the excessive circulation of coinage dangerous because it could act as an extreme brake on the Reichsbank’s ability to satisfy government liquidity requirements in the event of war. Thus, economic and military considerations went hand in hand as motives for Reichsbank policy…

By the end of 1914, the Reichsbank gold holdings reached two billion marks, but Germany’s citizens were reminded by a broadsheet that five billion in gold had been coined and that it was their “holy duty” to give their gold to the Reichsbank. The public was also reminded that “every pfennig that is cleared without the use of cash is a weapon against the economic war of annihilation conducted by our enemy.” [Note that FDR’s Executive Order 6102 banned private gold ownership and defaulted on gold certificates in 1933 - RH[

A particular effort was made to get schoolchildren to campaign among parents and their elders and thus assist in the national quest for gold. Instructive little brochures were produced with stories illustrating how bright children, properly instructed by their teachers, could extract the golden treasures hidden by shortsighted adults. Reading a brochure like “The Goldseekers at Work,” one wonders if the famed authoritarian upbringing of German children was not being sacrificed to Mammon by the Reichsbank.

It tells the story of three Gymnasium students who verbally harass a fictional elderly grain merchant, Bernhard Lehmann, into turning in his gold for paper money and perform this patriotic deed during school hours with the approval of their teacher. It had apparently become acceptable, even charming, to tell Herr Lehmann that he was a “betrayer of the Fatherland” and “unthinking” because of his reluctance to part with the precious metal…[Nothing new under the Sun - RH]

The plot thickens as Lehmann asks, “Actually, what prevents the Reichsbank from printing more money than three times its gold holdings?” but remains unconvinced when he is told that this would violate the law. He argues skeptically that, “If the law does not suffice anymore, then another will be made, as now occurs with fabulous speed. And then the Reichsbank will give out four or five times as much paper with all the advantages you mentioned also being there.” Undaunted, Schonfeld rises to the challenge, asking Lehmann if he would lend his money to someone with insufficient resources, even at a high interest rate. When Lehmann responds in the negative, his mind is prepared for the crucial lesson in the higher realms of state finance:”

You see, Herr Lehmann, that’s the way it is. And it is just that way with paper money. Why does everyone take paper just as readily as gold, although, for example, even a thousand mark bill is nothing more than a scrap of paper? Because he knows that the Reichsbank is in a position to give gold for it at any moment, because he knows that he can count on the Reich. What would happen if the Reich began to print notes without paying attention to its gold stock? It would immediately suffer a loss of confidence. The notes would no longer be accepted, especially abroad, or if accepted, then it would be like those profiteers who supply 750 marks or less worth of goods for the 1000 marks you pay them. A mark would only be worth 75 pfennig abroad or, as one would say, the mark has a low value (exchange rate). Every trading operation with foreign nations for such a state, therefore, means a huge loss. So it is with Russia now, which has frequently made a law like the one you have proposed and has printed banknotes without restraint…[Think about this passage, and then think about today’s monetary system, where no one any longer even pretends money is backed by anything except force - RH]

“As one might expect, the story ends with Lehmann cheerfully and appreciatively surrendering his hard-earned gold and the youngsters getting the next day off from school for their achievement…

Patrick says

What would happen if the Reich began to print notes without paying attention to its gold stock?

They used to pretend that all our paper dollars were backed by a vast hoard of gold in Ft Knox.Patrick says

no one any longer even pretends money is backed by anything except force

yup

https://rudy.substack.com/p/more-fun-in-the-new-world

richwicks says

@Onvacation - BTW - do you teach the Rust programming language? Somebody convinced me to get into it, it's really not terrible which I can't say about many languages.

The only interesting concept about rust is the ownership model of memory allocation, which is in between manual memory management and GC. The syntax is pretty bad and it's all in all likely too complex for modern programming. GCs have come a long way, it's doubtful this is needed except for in embedded or small hardware with limited memory use cases.

We need Friedman's algo.

The money supply for the year grows according to last year's GDP + 1%

Onvacation says

richwicks says

Lincoln. Basically, he was not the great liberator, the civil war really had nothing to do with slavery, and he was extremely corrupt.

I'd like to see that evidence.

@Onvacation

Lincoln read in the Crittenden Compromise in his inaugural speech, saying he would support that failed 13th amendment provided the South didn't withdraw from the Union.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lincoln1.asp

Just look for "slavery" though that. Lincoln basically wanted to remove "the negro" from the United States, he never envisioned they would be given equal rights. He was an abolitionist, because he didn't believe the negro should live among civilized men.

richwicks says

He was an abolitionist, because he didn't believe the negro should live among civilized men.

That changed when Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation. And it also changed with African Americans joined the Union Army.

However, Lincoln suggested before that and during his first two years as President that freed Africans could voluntarily move to Africa, Brazil, etc.

.

ad says

That changed when Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation. And it also changed with African Americans joined the Union Army.

However, Lincoln suggested before that and during his first two years as President that freed Africans could voluntarily move to Africa, Brazil, etc.

The EP isn't what people make it out to be. I believe there were provisions that would allow Southern States to keep their slaves. Lincoln cared about the Union(central government) at all costs. There are multiple speeches and written documents where he specifically says as much, and that he doesn't give a shit about slavery. Dude was our version of Stalin.

ad says

I just hope they can pull that off without the economy crashing and I hope the economy cannot sustain itself without ZIRP and quantitative easing.

You hope the economy cannot sustain itself without ZIRP and quantitative easing? What?

GNL says

You hope the economy cannot sustain itself without ZIRP and quantitative easing? What?

Yes, I hope the economy can sustain itself without relying on ZIRP and QE. I apologize for the incorrect wording of my original post.

When I was listening to economist talking heads on CNBC back in August 2013, they said that half of the gains in the stock market since 2009 was due to the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy.

Notice the Fed (under Yellen) did not raise interest rates until around the second half of 2016.

GDP only grew about 1.8% annually during the Obama Administration.

Inflation only averaged approximately 2%, even with the Fed Funds rate at 0.25%.

I am not sure what would have happened to the GDP growth rate if the Fed would have raised the Fed funds rate as early as 2013.

richwicks says

The Fed is our real rulers, and I KNOW people think that'

We all know the answer; because we are obedient to the laws; if no one obeys, then no one rules. But rulers are not gonna let this go, they will make you pay. So finally, it comes down to who is holding the whip and is ready and willing to crack it on the slaves.

Haven't they re-named it "Foreign Owned Bank Of Babylonian Debt Slavery And Fiat Money Printing" yet? How about "Foreign Bank Of Vampire Bats Sucking Off The Resources Of The Republic"?

Patrick says

Huh, you can clearly see that inflation really took off after the US dollar was delinked from gold in 1971.

Patrick says

Patrick says

Huh, you can clearly see that inflation really took off after the US dollar was delinked from gold in 1971.

It took off with the MIC and endless war.

RC2006 says

Patrick says

Patrick says

Huh, you can clearly see that inflation really took off after the US dollar was delinked from gold in 1971.

It took off with the MIC and endless war.

The Fed CREATES endless war.

The Federal Reserve is now the undisputed ruler of the United States. They can create money at will, so they can buy any asset or anybody. Anybody not willing to sell, they can be eliminated one way or another, not necessarily murder either.

We wouldn't have endless war if the Federal Reserve wasn't willing to loan money for it. So.. who owns the Federal Reserve? Woodrow Wilson was the greatest traitor this nation has ever had.

The national debt is so high that each worker owes about 1/4 million bucks.
I'm not 100% sure if this includes those who don't actually pay income taxes (just 43% of people in the USA pay them).
The money is not printed; it's debt which is owed by the US Treasury, borrowed and spent by Congress.
The loser female I know who somehow got $32,000 in "back unemployment" is the tip of the iceberg.
She and other losers who do not produce a real product or service for the extra money they received recently are one reason for inflation.
The Federal Reserve didn't extend and increase unemployment benefits because of the pandemic; Congress did that.

clambo says

The national debt is so high that each worker owes about 1/4 million bucks.
I'm not 100% sure if this includes those who don't actually pay income taxes (just 43% of people in the USA pay them).

Easy to calculate that - $31,000,000,000,000 bucks national debt divided by about 320,000,000 population equals about $97,000 each. So that $250k you mention must be just taxpayers, or families, or something along that line.

https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/one-sovereign-mans-overview-of-history

Ben Bernanke, Janet Yellen, who took over from Bernanke, and my main man, J. Powell, who took over from Janet Yellen. I'm sure these are all very nice people. I mean nothing against anybody, in terms of who they are, their character, and so forth. But it is, and I think actually if you guys came to the event in Austin, one of the things I actually found so interesting about Dr. Malone's remarks as he was talking about Fauci, was how Fauci wasn't really the problem so much as he is a symptom of the problem, as it was the system itself which was the problem in that it that enabled somebody like that to be able to take this control over everyone and everything. That, in a way, is really what this Federal Reserve situation is. It's not the individuals here.

It's the system itself that has been established since 1913, since they passed the law establishing the central bank in the United States, and ever since then, they've anointed this organization to say, "You're going to run everything in the economy. You have supreme executive authority to do whatever it is that you want to in the economy." And when you step back and consider that, you have to conclude "That's actually insane." It's insane to think that a couple of people can sit in a room and think that something as complex as a 20 plus trillion economy that has literally trillions and trillions of different economic units, businesses, transactions that occur. Every single transaction, every day. When you travel, when you buy food, when you fill up your gas tank, think about the trillions and trillions of those transactions that take place in a given year.

And to think that a handful of people are going to sit in a room, and they're going to push a button and just everything's going to be optimized, it is clearly insane to think that anybody can control that. It is literally insane. But that's the system that we have now with the Federal Reserve. These people are just representative of the system. ...

So what are they doing now? Well, with the interest rate increases, what they're trying to do by raising rates is they are trying to decrease demand, which is working, right? Because when it's more expensive to borrow money, people borrow less, which means they spend less, which reduces demand. That's the theory and, in part, that's actually working. But what they're also doing is that the Fed is also kind of decreasing supply as well, because you've got a lot of businesses that are really over leveraged, a lot of businesses that have a lot of debt.

All of a sudden, the business model for these leveraged companies depends on being able to continually refinance that debt, and suddenly they can't refinance that debt anymore because capital is more scarce, the rates are a lot higher, and these companies suddenly face bankruptcy. As a consequence, you have people that are going out of business, and when companies go out of business or employees get laid off, there is less supply, because there are fewer people and fewer business producing goods and services. So, sure, you have less demand, but you also have less supply. As a result you follow intersection of the supply and demand curves and arrive, more or less, at the same price. Maybe a little bit less, but not a material difference in your price levels, which is why after all of this, we really haven't seen too much in terms of a decrease in our price rates.

Onvacation says

Patrick says

What would happen if the Reich began to print notes without paying attention to its gold stock?

They used to pretend that all our paper dollars were backed by a vast hoard of gold in Ft Knox.Patrick says

no one any longer even pretends money is backed by anything except force

yup

How was gold not backed by force?

1337irr says

How was gold not backed by force?

You never have to force people to take sound money. Only fake money ever requires laws to ensure it's used. If I can pay you with a worthless paper from the Fed, and you have to take it, why should I ever spend my real money?

Sound a cry to have the Fed mark to market its Balance Sheet.

That way the peasants will have some understanding just how much the elites stole from them.

1337irr says

How was gold not backed by force?

It never was. Gold has been money in every civilization for all of time.

We're in a very temporary time where a bill is considered to have value, and the governments are trying to march us into a future where it's entirely digital.

Even primitive societies accepted gold as having value. There's no society that I know of that didn't, but I would guess there's a few.