World War 3 has been on the agenda for a long time and it's definitely a probability. Either way, better safe than sorry I would say. A leader has certain duties towards his country's and people's security.
Your numbers support my argument. If Trump is losing money like shown, then he has motive to try to stop the bleeding.
Why doEs it seem you define security solely in terms of law and order? People’s security is a lot more then that and when every red cent we have is going towards military, police and incarceration.. not much room left for “security”
I said the Catholic Church PIONEERED anti-slavery. Catholic papal bulls were the first public disapproval of slavery world-wide. Prove me wrong or remain enslaved to your Judeo-Protestant anti-Catholic historical revisionism.*yawns*
We (the Catholic Church) grant you by these present documents, with our Apostolic Authority, full and free permission to invade, search out, capture, and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they may be, as well as their kingdoms, duchies, counties, principalities, and other property [...] and to reduce their persons into perpetual servitude
Catholic Church: We give you (Europeans) permission to take everything from them and put them into perpetual servitude
Artful: The Catholic Church was anti slavery....
Umm to my understanding, correct me if Im wrong, JFK was trying to return to the gold standard which is step 1 to being assassinated (ask Ghaddafi?)
He speaks with his chest regarding everything but with the Fed all of a sudden theres no base in his voice? Its not about dismantling the Fe but if you're going to claim he's for the people then I'd expect something better than he created more wage slave jobs and "suggested the Fed lower rates on money they're creating out of nowhere"....
They sanctioned slavery yet you want me to give them props for later (allegedly) being anti slavery?
Do you pay taxes?
There's benefits to the fed for doing this as well because the fed would be able to charge fees on deposits they hold from commercial banks. This in turn can allow commercial banks to reduce borrowing costs spurring spending as they should technically want to disperse more liquidity to consumers then hold. So in theory you're right, reducing to negative interest rates would be ideal as people will take out money for businesses, homes, cars etc. The problem is that in reality banks are greedy as fuck. They will not trickle much of these savings down to consumer because banks don't lend on the basis of liquidity but on the basis of risk. Technically, since banks will have more money (as they will not want to hold it in the federal reserve due to paying a negative interest rate or tax on that money held) you would think that increased liquidity would mean banks would lend out more? But that's not the truth. Here in Canada, interest rates drops have hardly trickled down to drops for consumers. With more uncertainty during our current pandemic banks are more reluctant to lend because risk to lend is greater.
I have never seen it verified that JFK actually tried to do that. But if you can provide something tangible, I would definitely take a look.
Trump however, IS trying to return to the gold standard.
I agree completely with you here. A marker for Trump would be how his position is towards negative interest rates for deposits and savings accounts. Definitely something to watch out for.
Negative interest rates would actually create an inflationary response due to more money in circulation which would probably weaken the dollar in the mid to long term. This is exactly opposite of what trump said he'd do for the economy. Not to mention the stimulus package he has created will increase American debt and cause more inflation too again due to increase in money supply.
I feel the need to reiterate that they were pioneers of the abolishment of slavery. Find me a different institution in the world that predates the Catholic Church in this regard. You want to focus on the Dum Diversas of Pope Nicholas V for instance, which was at that time on par with pretty much the rest of the world, and ignore the papal bulls of for instance Pope Eugene IV, like Sicut Dudum:
Either misremembered or was completely off base but I couldnt find anything about a gold standard and JFK. Probably because the gold standard was still in effect until the 70's.
Yea but talk is cheap. When he starts enacting measures that goes at the FED or directly attacks them ("End the Fed" was a direct attack though I dont think it was a serious one) then he'd have more of my ear. Till then all he gets from me is "he's not as bad as people are trying to make him out to be but he's not a saviour or freedom fighter either"...
A bigger and stronger US army is only a problem to me if the leader of that army is bent on the perpetuation or expansion of American imperialism, which I don't think is happening. I actually think that, if Trump gets re-elected, we'll see the end of American imperialism before the end of his term, whether Trump intended it or not. I think he justs wants the US to be the leading example to other nations without enforcing American exceptionalism down other peoples' throats.
This is where it gets technical. The end of the gold standard was in 1933 under Roosevelt. I think the difference between 1933 and 1971 was that after 1933 money could no longer be traded against gold by a fixed price, while in 1971 money could no longer be traded against gold at all. But I'd have to look into it more to make sure this is correct.
Duly noted. We wait to find out.
This is true if it was meant to be applied mid to long-term, but that's not the point here. It's a temporary measure to boost US exports. The dollar is currently strong compared to other currencies, so the dollar can take the hit of temporary inflation, and the cheap dollar would largely compensate on the international markets because it's an incentive to buy American goods. It's an obvious win-situation for the American economy.
Or in other words I was speaking out of line lol Fair enough. I do think his speech about secret societies had something to do with it. And in a roundabout, indirect way, he touched on the Federal Reserve. I'll wait to see what Trump says or does thats on that level but Im with you on somethings with him. I just dont believe its genuine..
I mean you can reiterate something all you want but it doesnt change the fact that they sanctioned it. Why would I give someone props for abolishing something they sanctioned in the first place? Like a person is robbing a house and they stop and Im supposed to applaud them for stopping?
I think its dishonest that you want to applaud them for abolishing something they started in the first place. I got this from wiki because I had never heard of
Who can live in this world without a job? Are you talking about the people on welfare..who live off other peoples money?
I think a more proper analogy would be: everyone in the world is robbing houses, and a bystander whose moral judgment is held in high regard, who didn't interrupt or disapprove, said : "Wait, this is wrong."
It's impossible to have the truth more upside down than what you say here. Blaming the pioneer of the abolishment of slavery for slavery. lol Unbelievable.
Im talking about the scam economy thats collapsing before your eyes.. Its over Lisa soon enough and maybe you'll get to see how life SHOULD be and not how the pope/western europe's matrix sees it