Fiat Money System [AVI - Conspiracy - Sept 11th - 911 - NWO - Il
- Type:
- Video > Movies
- Files:
- 1
- Size:
- 267.34 MB
- Spoken language(s):
- English
- Texted language(s):
- English
- Quality:
- +1 / -0 (+1)
- Uploaded:
- May 4, 2007
- By:
- lkobescak
Fiat Money System (An Alex Jones Interview With Dr. Bill Veith): ---------------------------------------------------------------- Format: AVI Dr. Bill Veith and Alex Jones have a fantastic discussion about the fiat money system in place and controlled by the international banking cartel. Dr. Veith's understanding of the economic system is impeccable and shows in the clarity in which he presents this knowledge. He lays out in layman's terms how the economy is manipulated and how one can protect oneself in an economic colapse by owning gold and silver coins; tangible wealth that can not be deflated. A must see for anyone interested in learning about taking the power back from the illuminati masters of deception. Run time: 42 minutes ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Additional information on September 11th, NWO, the Illuminati and the great threat to you can be found at www infowars com or www.prisonplanet.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yo,
if you had watched 'The Money Masters' by Bill Still and Pat Carmark you wouldn't had posted this movie here in the first place.
Fiat currency has worked like charm in the past. the problem is not the fiat currency per se, but the people behind it and their objectives.
Have a look at http://iamthewitness.com for more detailed information on the subject, then you may remove this torrent since it doesn't help anyone or anybody, except those who already have a fortune in gold and other precious metals.
if you had watched 'The Money Masters' by Bill Still and Pat Carmark you wouldn't had posted this movie here in the first place.
Fiat currency has worked like charm in the past. the problem is not the fiat currency per se, but the people behind it and their objectives.
Have a look at http://iamthewitness.com for more detailed information on the subject, then you may remove this torrent since it doesn't help anyone or anybody, except those who already have a fortune in gold and other precious metals.
lkobescak at 2007-11-09 15:28 CET:
For more movies/music and files like this, check out my other torrents at:
http://thepiratebay.ee/user/lkobescak
http://thepiratebay.ee/user/lkobescak
lkobescak at 2007-11-22 13:11 CET:
U.S. government tricks hide trillions in debt
--------------------------------------------------
Every year, tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars are quietly added to the U.S. national debt -- on top of the deficits that we hear about. What's going on?
By Scott Burns
November 21, 2007
When it comes to financial magic, the government of the United States takes the prize. Sleights of hand and clever distractions by purveyors of line-of-credit mortgages, living-benefit variable annuities and equity-indexed life insurance are clumsy parlour tricks compared with the Big Magic of American politicians.
Consider the proud trumpeting that came from Washington at the close of fiscal 2007. The deficit for the unified budget was, politicians crowed, down to a mere $162.8 billion.
In fact, the U.S. government is overspending at a far greater rate. The total federal debt actually increased by $497.1 billion over the same period.
But politicians of both parties use happy numbers to distract American voters. Democrats routinely criticize the Republican administration for crippling deficits, but they politely use the least-damaging figure, the $162.8 billion. Why? Because references to more-realistic accounting would reveal vastly greater numbers and implicate both parties.
You can understand how this is done by taking a close look at a single statement on U.S. federal finance from the president's Council of Economic Advisers. The September statement shows that the "on-budget" numbers produced a deficit of $344.3 billion in fiscal 2007. The "off-budget" numbers had a surplus of $181.5 billion. (The off-budget figures are dominated by Social Security, Medicare and other programs with trust funds.)
Combine those two figures and you get the unified budget, that $162.8 billion. In the past eight years there's been two years of reported surpluses and six years of reported deficits. Altogether, the total reported deficit has run $1.3 trillion.
Some numbers don't add up
But if you examine another figure, the gross U.S. federal debt, you'll see something strange. First, the U.S. debt has increased in each of the past eight years, even in the two years when surpluses were reported. Second, the gross federal debt, which includes the obligations held by the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, has increased much faster than the deficits -- about $3.3 trillion over the same eight years.
That's $2 trillion more than the reported $1.3 trillion in deficits over the period. Can you spell "Enron"?
In other words, while the reported deficits averaged $164 billion over the past eight years, U.S. government debt increased an average of $418 billion a year. That's a lot more than twice as much.
How could this happen?
Easy. The U.S. Treasury Department simply credits the Social Security, Medicare and other trust funds with interest payments in the form of new Treasury obligations. No cash is actually paid. The trust funds magically increase in value with a bookkeeping entry. It represents money the American government owes itself.
So what happens if the funny money is taken away?
When the imaginary interest payments are included, Social Security and Medicare are running at a tranquilizing surplus (that $181.5 billion mentioned earlier). But measure actual cash, and the surplus disappears.
In 2005, for instance, the U.S. Social Security Disability Income program started to run at a cash loss. 2007 is the first year that Medicare Part A (the hospital insurance program) benefits exceeded income.
The same thing will happen to the U.S. Social Security retirement-income program in six to nine years, depending on which of the trustees' estimates you use. During the same period, the expenses of Medicare Part B and Part D, which are paid out of general tax revenue, will rise rapidly.
Despite this, the U.S. Social Security Administration writes workers every year advising them that the program will have a problem 34 years from now, not six or nine years. In fact, the real problem is al
--------------------------------------------------
Every year, tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars are quietly added to the U.S. national debt -- on top of the deficits that we hear about. What's going on?
By Scott Burns
November 21, 2007
When it comes to financial magic, the government of the United States takes the prize. Sleights of hand and clever distractions by purveyors of line-of-credit mortgages, living-benefit variable annuities and equity-indexed life insurance are clumsy parlour tricks compared with the Big Magic of American politicians.
Consider the proud trumpeting that came from Washington at the close of fiscal 2007. The deficit for the unified budget was, politicians crowed, down to a mere $162.8 billion.
In fact, the U.S. government is overspending at a far greater rate. The total federal debt actually increased by $497.1 billion over the same period.
But politicians of both parties use happy numbers to distract American voters. Democrats routinely criticize the Republican administration for crippling deficits, but they politely use the least-damaging figure, the $162.8 billion. Why? Because references to more-realistic accounting would reveal vastly greater numbers and implicate both parties.
You can understand how this is done by taking a close look at a single statement on U.S. federal finance from the president's Council of Economic Advisers. The September statement shows that the "on-budget" numbers produced a deficit of $344.3 billion in fiscal 2007. The "off-budget" numbers had a surplus of $181.5 billion. (The off-budget figures are dominated by Social Security, Medicare and other programs with trust funds.)
Combine those two figures and you get the unified budget, that $162.8 billion. In the past eight years there's been two years of reported surpluses and six years of reported deficits. Altogether, the total reported deficit has run $1.3 trillion.
Some numbers don't add up
But if you examine another figure, the gross U.S. federal debt, you'll see something strange. First, the U.S. debt has increased in each of the past eight years, even in the two years when surpluses were reported. Second, the gross federal debt, which includes the obligations held by the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, has increased much faster than the deficits -- about $3.3 trillion over the same eight years.
That's $2 trillion more than the reported $1.3 trillion in deficits over the period. Can you spell "Enron"?
In other words, while the reported deficits averaged $164 billion over the past eight years, U.S. government debt increased an average of $418 billion a year. That's a lot more than twice as much.
How could this happen?
Easy. The U.S. Treasury Department simply credits the Social Security, Medicare and other trust funds with interest payments in the form of new Treasury obligations. No cash is actually paid. The trust funds magically increase in value with a bookkeeping entry. It represents money the American government owes itself.
So what happens if the funny money is taken away?
When the imaginary interest payments are included, Social Security and Medicare are running at a tranquilizing surplus (that $181.5 billion mentioned earlier). But measure actual cash, and the surplus disappears.
In 2005, for instance, the U.S. Social Security Disability Income program started to run at a cash loss. 2007 is the first year that Medicare Part A (the hospital insurance program) benefits exceeded income.
The same thing will happen to the U.S. Social Security retirement-income program in six to nine years, depending on which of the trustees' estimates you use. During the same period, the expenses of Medicare Part B and Part D, which are paid out of general tax revenue, will rise rapidly.
Despite this, the U.S. Social Security Administration writes workers every year advising them that the program will have a problem 34 years from now, not six or nine years. In fact, the real problem is al
lkobescak at 2008-10-19 03:22 CET:
Wanted: a new financial order
---------------------------------
The Globe and Mail (Canada)
October 18, 2008 at 12:05 AM EDT
Article DOUG SAUNDERS
BRUSSELS ? A week ago, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel found themselves strolling together through the cobble-stoned streets of Colombey-les-Deux-Églises, a tiny village in the northeast of France, where they were attending a war-memorial ceremony.
The town is known as a place where French leaders, from the time of Charles de Gaulle, have gone to escape the world and restore their energy. There was much retreating and restoring to be done last Saturday: The previous day, their finance ministers had rushed home early from a Washington crisis meeting after stock markets had crashed dramatically and expensive national schemes to restore the credit system had failed.
None of the patchwork of plans appeared to work and the world economy was threatening to seize up. A few hours earlier, the head of the International Monetary Fund ? a Frenchman ? had declared that the world financial system was "on the brink of systemic meltdown." Both leaders had been on the phone with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, and they had agreed to follow his plan for governments to purchase major stakes in their countries' failing banks, at huge expense. With that done, anything seemed possible.
It was during their stroll, and over lunch afterward, that these two often-feuding leaders arrived at another conclusion: Nothing would be truly fixed, they believed, until there was a new world financial system in place, a new economic watchdog supervising the world's economies.
Enlarge Image
A picture from the U.S. National Archives released by the International Monetary Fund show U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau welcoming delegates during the opening meeting of the Bretton Woods Conference. (U.S. National Archives/AFP/Getty Images)
That was a view that had been pushed strongly by Mr. Brown, in a memo that he had begun circulating among associates and leaders, and it agreed, on the surface, with something similar to what Mr. Sarkozy had been saying for weeks: That this was an unprecedented global crisis, beyond the scope or powers of any national government.
The next step, they agreed, would have to involve the whole world, and would require rewriting the rulebook of global capitalism.
With that lunch, Europe had reached a consensus, at least superficially, on a solution that had not been attempted in 64 years: a major global meeting that would attempt to redesign the world-finance system. It was an acknowledgment, at a high level, that with the current crisis, the entire postwar economic system may have come to an end. What comes next will be a matter of heated disagreement.
By Tuesday morning, the Americans were on board, at least as far as attending the proposed meeting ? expected to be held in New York shortly after the Nov. 4 presidential election. Prime Minister Stephen Harper, fresh from his re-election, said Friday he also supports holding the meeting. All the G8 industrialized nations have agreed to attend, at least on paper, and it is expected that China, Brazil and India will take part.
While there's no consensus on what the new financial order should be and there are signs of deeply divergent views, these countries appear at least willing to talk about a new international order at a meeting the three European leaders are calling Bretton Woods II, after the 1944 meeting that started it all.
"Merkel became convinced at Colombey that Brown and Sarkozy were correct that the whole postwar system of finance does not work any more, and something new will have to take its place," said a European Union official involved with the talks.
Saturday morning, the Europeans will try to take Washington a step further. Leaving early from the Montreal summit with the Canadian government, Mr. Sarkozy and European Union Commission president José Manuel Barroso will fly to Camp David to sit down with President Ge
---------------------------------
The Globe and Mail (Canada)
October 18, 2008 at 12:05 AM EDT
Article DOUG SAUNDERS
BRUSSELS ? A week ago, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel found themselves strolling together through the cobble-stoned streets of Colombey-les-Deux-Églises, a tiny village in the northeast of France, where they were attending a war-memorial ceremony.
The town is known as a place where French leaders, from the time of Charles de Gaulle, have gone to escape the world and restore their energy. There was much retreating and restoring to be done last Saturday: The previous day, their finance ministers had rushed home early from a Washington crisis meeting after stock markets had crashed dramatically and expensive national schemes to restore the credit system had failed.
None of the patchwork of plans appeared to work and the world economy was threatening to seize up. A few hours earlier, the head of the International Monetary Fund ? a Frenchman ? had declared that the world financial system was "on the brink of systemic meltdown." Both leaders had been on the phone with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, and they had agreed to follow his plan for governments to purchase major stakes in their countries' failing banks, at huge expense. With that done, anything seemed possible.
It was during their stroll, and over lunch afterward, that these two often-feuding leaders arrived at another conclusion: Nothing would be truly fixed, they believed, until there was a new world financial system in place, a new economic watchdog supervising the world's economies.
Enlarge Image
A picture from the U.S. National Archives released by the International Monetary Fund show U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau welcoming delegates during the opening meeting of the Bretton Woods Conference. (U.S. National Archives/AFP/Getty Images)
That was a view that had been pushed strongly by Mr. Brown, in a memo that he had begun circulating among associates and leaders, and it agreed, on the surface, with something similar to what Mr. Sarkozy had been saying for weeks: That this was an unprecedented global crisis, beyond the scope or powers of any national government.
The next step, they agreed, would have to involve the whole world, and would require rewriting the rulebook of global capitalism.
With that lunch, Europe had reached a consensus, at least superficially, on a solution that had not been attempted in 64 years: a major global meeting that would attempt to redesign the world-finance system. It was an acknowledgment, at a high level, that with the current crisis, the entire postwar economic system may have come to an end. What comes next will be a matter of heated disagreement.
By Tuesday morning, the Americans were on board, at least as far as attending the proposed meeting ? expected to be held in New York shortly after the Nov. 4 presidential election. Prime Minister Stephen Harper, fresh from his re-election, said Friday he also supports holding the meeting. All the G8 industrialized nations have agreed to attend, at least on paper, and it is expected that China, Brazil and India will take part.
While there's no consensus on what the new financial order should be and there are signs of deeply divergent views, these countries appear at least willing to talk about a new international order at a meeting the three European leaders are calling Bretton Woods II, after the 1944 meeting that started it all.
"Merkel became convinced at Colombey that Brown and Sarkozy were correct that the whole postwar system of finance does not work any more, and something new will have to take its place," said a European Union official involved with the talks.
Saturday morning, the Europeans will try to take Washington a step further. Leaving early from the Montreal summit with the Canadian government, Mr. Sarkozy and European Union Commission president José Manuel Barroso will fly to Camp David to sit down with President Ge
lkobescak at 2008-10-19 03:23 CET:
profit-making instruments, free from interference.
Until this week, that is, when government and money came crashing back into one another. Suddenly, governments are the major providers of loans, and the major shareholders in banks, and the ability to keep the money flowing is beyond the authority of any one country. The idea that central banks can quietly stick to keeping inflation at bay is gone. Once again, we are aiming for the prevention of catastrophes.
On Monday, Mr. Brown arrived at a meeting of the 15 countries that have the euro as their currency and laid out, behind closed doors, that vague but sweeping set of proposals he would make public two days later.
"We now have global financial markets, global corporations, global financial flows," he told them. "But what we do not have is anything other than national and regional regulation and supervision. We need a global way of supervising our financial system."
The idea became surprisingly popular in Brussels on that day, partly because Mr. Brown's vagueness turned his seven-page plan into something of a Rorschach test on which could be projected each country's economic fantasies. Italian President Silvio Berlusconi talked about a world without the dollar, where the euro might become the reserve currency.
The otherwise conservative Mr. Sarkozy declared in a grandiose speech that "we need to found a new capitalism, based on values that put finance at the service of companies and citizens, and not the reverse." Such lines play very well in France, but are not likely to win any high-fives from Mr. Bush this morning in Washington.
Before a meeting date could even be set, the leaders squabbled over who had invented the idea. Mr. Sarkozy, through his aides, make it known that he had been proposing since Sept. 23 that a new global regulatory system be built.
Mr. Brown, in turn, had his aides point out that in January of 2007 he had argued that international finance regulation was "urgently in need of modernization and reform."
All of this sounded a bit rich to a community that had watched these European leaders, notably Mr. Brown as Britain's finance minister in the late 1990s, participate in a deregulation and neglect of the financial system that had allowed the complex network of mortgage-backed debt instruments to spiral out of control and destroy the debt-burdened banking system.
Until this week, that is, when government and money came crashing back into one another. Suddenly, governments are the major providers of loans, and the major shareholders in banks, and the ability to keep the money flowing is beyond the authority of any one country. The idea that central banks can quietly stick to keeping inflation at bay is gone. Once again, we are aiming for the prevention of catastrophes.
On Monday, Mr. Brown arrived at a meeting of the 15 countries that have the euro as their currency and laid out, behind closed doors, that vague but sweeping set of proposals he would make public two days later.
"We now have global financial markets, global corporations, global financial flows," he told them. "But what we do not have is anything other than national and regional regulation and supervision. We need a global way of supervising our financial system."
The idea became surprisingly popular in Brussels on that day, partly because Mr. Brown's vagueness turned his seven-page plan into something of a Rorschach test on which could be projected each country's economic fantasies. Italian President Silvio Berlusconi talked about a world without the dollar, where the euro might become the reserve currency.
The otherwise conservative Mr. Sarkozy declared in a grandiose speech that "we need to found a new capitalism, based on values that put finance at the service of companies and citizens, and not the reverse." Such lines play very well in France, but are not likely to win any high-fives from Mr. Bush this morning in Washington.
Before a meeting date could even be set, the leaders squabbled over who had invented the idea. Mr. Sarkozy, through his aides, make it known that he had been proposing since Sept. 23 that a new global regulatory system be built.
Mr. Brown, in turn, had his aides point out that in January of 2007 he had argued that international finance regulation was "urgently in need of modernization and reform."
All of this sounded a bit rich to a community that had watched these European leaders, notably Mr. Brown as Britain's finance minister in the late 1990s, participate in a deregulation and neglect of the financial system that had allowed the complex network of mortgage-backed debt instruments to spiral out of control and destroy the debt-burdened banking system.
Comments