'Money For Nothing'
Jim Bruce's 'Money For Nothing' Reveals The Scary Doings Of The Federal Reserve
Money For Nothing: Inside the Federal Reserve is a feature length documentary about the Federal Reserve System recently in theatrical release. US News calls it “far from a tin-foil hat critique, approaches the Fed’s flaws with a refreshing clarity, humor, even-handedness and level-headedness.” Variety says that it “presents a firm but fair inquiry into the failings of the Federal Reserve both leading up to and following the recent U.S. financial crisis.”
This movie takes a long look at how The Federal Reserve has strayed from its original mandate to provide liquidity during times of financial panic within the structure of the classical gold standard. The Fed has morphed into a laboratory of discretionary monetary experiments that have resulted in disastrous consequences. Richard Danker, economic policy director of the American Principles Project says, “This documentary provides an excellent conversation-starter for the American public on an issue that is well deserving of further attention on the 100-year anniversary of The Federal Reserve.”
...Money For Nothing goes on to describe the various policies the Fed has implemented over the years and how they impacted the overall economy. Using a Jenga tower as a powerful metaphor for the Fed-driven boom and bust cycle the film presents how the Fed has frequently created asset bubbles that have trapped our economy in a vicious cycle. With insightful commentary from Fed chair nominee Janet Yellen, former officials such as Paul Volcker, and public intellectuals such as James Grant, this documentary pulls back the curtain on this institution as it identifies the impact of some major monetary actions the Fed has taken.
...Perhaps the most compelling feature of this documentary is the exceptional coverage of the actions which led to the financial collapse in 2008. As it explains, there are some who believe the 2008 collapse was actually a “perfect storm” of many different policy failures rather than caused by one single driver. The film does an excellent job of debunking this “Great Coincidence Theory,” critiquing the notion that “every individual facet of our financial seems to have fallen apart at the same time.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/10/11/jim-bruces-money-for-nothing-reveals-the-scary-doings-of-the-federal-reserve/
= new reply since forum marked as read
You can't fix it. You can't tinker with it to make it ''stable.'' You can't tweak it nor quantitatively ease things back into ''normalcy'' -- whatever that might be. It was based from its beginnings upon the idea of obtaining something (interest) from nothing. It is the artificial manufacture of money within the bank where the loan originates, even while knowing that the bank does not have sufficient revenues to cover the debt. Thus, 10% fiat money is born.
Capitalism is social cancer. Like all cancer, it produces nothing but consumes as much as will be allowed, up to and including if it means the death of its host. Cancer never cares about the fact that if it keeps sucking away at its host's juices, it will ultimately kill itself. That it can do, because this way it forces the host to kill it.
But cancer cells are cells that have forgotten apoptosis. The genetic programmed death and need for a cell to commit suicide once its mission has been accomplish. It's suppose to die and allow new cells for a new time to takeover. And like it's physical counterparts, the cancer cells of Wall Street live on killing everything in its path.
But no matter how long the corpse is allowed to stay on life-support, it's brain activity ceased long ago. The pumping of fiat blood into the body may give it a sense of movement and warmth as if it were alive again. But it is not. It's an illusion designed to avoid the telling of the truth to the next-of-kin (us and the rest of the world) of the death of someone so important to us all. It is a death announcement that will be heard and felt all around the world.
- But what is dead must be buried. And this thing is dead, and it should be buried before the stink and decay overwhelms everything that remains that is yet untouched. The longer we wait the harder it will be to start over......
...and in the end, any system that incorporates any kind of money in it is doomed to fail. Our desire for money stems from a learned ''need and fear'' of scarcity. Fears that while real, have been largely overcome through our own evolution and the technologies we've built as a result, but whose benefits have accrued to only a few at the top. Not mankind in-general. Common right to all the resources of the planet must be the underlying premise of any direction we take or any system we develop.
- I'm disinclined toward building anything for the future from blueprints created in our past. Those experiences are best for remembering what not to do.
If Everyone In The World Lived In Texas
If you divided the square footage of the State of Texas by the world's population, what would be the square foot area available per person?
Texas land area is: 261,232 square miles
1 square mile = 640 acres: 261,232 x 640 = 167,188,480 square acres
1 acre = 43,560 square feet: 167,188,480 x 43,560 = 7,282,730,188,800 square feet
World Population: 7,000,000,000
Thus: 7,282,730,188,800 square feet divided by 7,000,000,000 people = 1040.39 square feet per person
Conclusions:
The purpose of this exercise is not for anyone to move to Texas, but rather to demonstrate by example just how extreme the gulf is between our true size and impact upon the earth, relative to its ability to sustain us. Particularly if we managed and treated our mother Gaia as a living heritage for us all. Every cell in our bodies contains all the particulates of this planet. We are it and it is us. We ARE the planet.
Yet we are constantly told that we're using everything up and tearing everything down. A drag on the planet. It's all our fault, the way things are. And we need to sacrifice some more. But few consider the dynamics of what this means relative to the size and variability of our planet.
The view of resource limits is primarily a lie that is perpetrated to keep the existing system in-place and running. Profit, ownership and capitalism all require competition, scarcity and demand as the central theme of society. The need for the concept of scarce goods makes us fight each other to obtain them while driving up prices and resulting in ''wealth.'' For some. But the truth is no one owns anything. On this planet nor anywhere else. We woke up here one day, and there everything was, already pre-packaged for us.
It occurs to me that if the world's population could fit inside an area the size of Texas giving each person 1000 or so square feet each to live in (about size of the average 2BR apartment), that would put the ratio between all the people of the world to its resources in a mind-boggling skew in favor of people, thousands and thousands of times over.
Think of all that vacant land out there and the resources upon and within them if everyone's living in Texas? No one in all of North America. No one in Europe, Asia, Russia. Australia is a blank, and not a soul in all of Africa nor South America. In theory, we could all fit quite nicely in Texas. Of all places.
On paper we are all theoretical billionaires, in-common. So how can there be homelessness in a land of vacant houses? How can there be hunger, when 40% of the food we grow never leaves the fields? This is our world of scarcity that we've been sold as ''reality.'' Given the truth, why does this planet have any poor people? At all? We all know the answer to that question.
[font size=4]AND THAT'S AT THE CORE OF ALL OUR PROBLEMS[/font].
~DeSwiss
