Zorax, That's a real Ron Paulish blast from years ago. It sent me wandering the hallowed halls of Tornado Alley as your
"What our actual U.S. government need to do, is cancel the fed reserve. Since 1913 the banks and the individuals that owned them at the time have taken control of our government and charged them interest on making the governments own money.
The fed res is a private cartel of a handful of power broker private banks around the world that own governments. This is beyond money riches. The feds have owned the private and absolute right to control the money markets for 115 years. And they fight every day to keep ownership and NOTHING is beneath them.
Anyone's life but their own is meaningless. Wars are not mistakes, but country and debt grabs by these banks. "
really did ring a bell. Ok, whaddaya know, this time i actually bumped into the one recall had worked on
Myth #4: The Federal Reserve is a privately owned bank out to make a profit at the taxpayers' expense.
This myth claims that the 12 Federal Reserve banks are privately owned and therefore want to earn a profit just like any other company. Of course, the Fed holds the reigns of monetary policy, so naturally they will use it for the benefit of their owners and not the economy at large. And finally, since the Fed owns lots of government bonds, much of the Fed's profits come at the taxpayers' expense through the interest paid to the Fed on those bonds. Like many of the other Federal Reserve myths, this one has a small degree of truth to it, but also has a fair amount of misinterpretation and it leaves out a number of crucial details.
[...]
Conclusion
The regional Federal Reserve Banks are private owned, but they are controlled by the Board of Governors -- a federal agency whose members are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The Board sets monetary policy and the Federal Reserve Banks execute it. In addition, the Fed does not use any taxpayer money to fund its operations. While the Fed does collect interest on government bonds, the Treasury would have had to make such payment even if they Fed did not hold any bonds. Moreover, the Fed rebates a significant share of its net income to the Treasury each year, revenues the government would not have at all if the Fed owned no government bonds.
So according to that one you are sorta right but.... I've pretty much forgotten detail, just knew there was one which had things to say about what you had said above.
Ron Paul's Racism Isn't the Worst Thing About Him [...] Would eliminate FEMA Would eliminate the Federal Reserve Would eliminate the Occupational Health and Safety Administration Would eliminate AmeriCorps Would eliminate spending to combat AIDS overseas Would eliminate gas taxes Opposes the census gathering demographic data on Americans Opposed the dismantling of U.S. nuclear missile silos Wanted to withdraw the U.S. from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty Jan. 2012 - https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=70425554
Actually Trump was/is into some of those.
Have just been reminded there is a JFK conspiracy theory in there
This one i think will interest you too, The Stockholder Myth [...] Investors, on the other hand, may never set foot inside "their" companies, may not even know where they're located or what they produce. Corporations exist to enrich investors alone. In the corporate society, only those who own stock can vote. This recalls America before the mid-1800s, when only those who owned land could vote. P - We think of this as the natural law of the free market, but it is more accurately the result of a corporate governance structure that violates free market principles. In a free market, everyone scrambles to get what he or she can, and they keep what they earn. In the construct of the corporation, one group gets what another earns. [...] Corporations are believed to exist for one purpose alone: to maximize returns to shareholders. This principle is reinforced by CEOs, the Wall Street Journal, business schools, and the courts. It is the law of the land - much as the divine right of kings was once the law of the land. Indeed, "maximizing returns to shareholders" is almost universally accepted as a kind of divine, unchallengeable mandate. It is not in the least controversial. Though it should be. P - What do shareholders contribute to justify the extraordinary allegiance they receive? They take risks, we're told. They put their money on the line, so that corporations might grow and prosper. Let's test the truth of this with a little quiz: P - "Stockholders fund major public corporations." - True or false? P - or the most part, massively false. P - Equity "investments" reach a public corporation only when new common stock is sold, which for major corporations is a rare event. Among the Dow Jones industrials, only a few have sold any new common stock in 30 years. Many have sold little or none in 50 years. Mar. 2011 - https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=61036223
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
