KINCHIK

I think she rocks is amazin and she is the best singer ever - "naked lady gaga DOT comm" a girl like her wow

"I'd be very concerned congressman that if we published the individual names of who was borrowing from us, no one would borrow from us..." yeah, you'd all go to jail

This is so frustrating! Just tell it already! You (Fed) already sold America Out. Just come clean!

why would it be a bad idea to tell the name of the corporations? what are they hiding ?

If you ever figure out if the Fed controls the money supply, you be sure to let me know. Or run away again.

You're the one who's supposed to be running. I said go!

And there you go, running away without answering the question.

I'll get back to you when you add something of substance to any comment or reply you make. Ready, GO!

Get back to me if you ever figure out the answer to my question.

By correcting me I take it you mean rewording my sentences, adding nothing to the conversation except pathetic, obvious attempts at derailment, and adding your own poor grammar and spelling errors? I suppose that does seem rather energy deficient.

"It's sad that this topic consumes so much of your energy" Correcting your errors takes very little energy.

"You sure you don't want to ask me again if the Fed controls the money supply?" If you didn't know the answer before, why would I ask you again?

@TheAnonymousOne67 "No, refusing to lend when you are the lender of last resort can only result in one thing - contraction" How much does refusing to lend contract the money supply?

@patbarkley Me: "its decision to cut further loans" You: "It's decision not to expand loans." Again, you state a sentence as if you are correcting me, yet you said nothing different. It's sad that this topic consumes so much of your energy, yet comparatively you're much weaker. You spend so much time trying to undercut my stance and appear as if you are correcting me, but you end up restating sentences by switching words with grammatical errors.

@patbarkley "Wrong. Buying T-Bills by the Fed increases money supply. Selling of T-Bills by the Fed reduces money supply. Doing nothing does neither." You sure you don't want to ask me again if the Fed controls the money supply? It's sentences like these that really cheapen your position.

@patbarkley "No, refusing to lend is neutral." No, refusing to lend when you are the lender of last resort can only result in one thing - contraction. When you know the banks that you support are desperately trying to maintain liquidity, not lending to them is contractual. Much like Federal Reserve Chairmen of past and Friedman have noted this policy was what led to the depression.

• "...the wealth of the Rothschilds consists of the bankruptcy of nations."

@TheAnonymousOne67 "Refusing to lend when you are the lender of last resort is contractual by nature" No, refusing to lend is neutral. "If the means by which supply is created is determined by "loaning" that money out, then NOT loaning would create an opposite effect" Wrong. Buying T-Bills by the Fed increases money supply. Selling of T-Bills by the Fed reduces money supply. Doing nothing does neither. "its decision to cut further loans" It's decision not to expand loans.

Not sure why my response to someone else came up under this reply. Refusing to lend when you are the lender of last resort is contractual by nature. If the means by which supply is created is determined by "loaning" that money out, then NOT loaning would create an opposite effect. It isn't taking money by selling, but its decision to cut further loans allowed for the panic to take full effect. But you already knew that...

This is just classic!

egg comes before the chicken

@babbleblow "i believe that he must know a good deal about the subject" Every time he opens his mouth he shows how little he knows. Or he knows and is a lying sack of shit.

That was a good one.

@TheAnonymousOne67 As Patbarkley clearly stated, the question isnt stupid, you are.

Context? Context? Are you serious? NOTHING was taken out of context. andrewrosso wrote that he thought the FRA had to go and you wrote that it does not need to go, and that it was a safeguard so the leading causes of the great depression didn't happen again. That's what was said and that IS the context. Seriously, how do you even type with that IQ?