Phuket Poll: Do you believe in Bitcoin?

[webfact]

Phuket Poll: Do you believe in Bitcoin?

The Phuket News

 

A man looks at ATM machines for Bitcoin in Hong Kong. Bitcoin's reported value has soared over the past year, breaking many records, and risen more than 20-fold since the start of 2017. Photo: AFP

 

PHUKET: Bitcoin may have launched nine years ago, but cryptocurrencies are now taking the public imagination by storm as an alternative form of currency – but this one entirely beyond the influence of the global banking industry.

 

However, it has been a rocky road since 2009, with serious questions asked of the security involved in trading cryptocurrencies, despite the advent of Blockchain, a public ledger of all transactions kept online for all the world to see.

 

Of note, the theft of a reported US$65 million of the digital currency from a brokerage based in Hong Kong in September 2016 alone saw global prices fall from around US$620 to around $535 per Bitcoin.

 

Full story: https://www.thephuketnews.com/phuket-poll-do-you-believe-in-bitcoin-65688.php

 

-- © Copyright Phuket News 2018-01-23

[Guest]

Hi All, 

 

  I just made a new PhuketCoin. I made 70 billion of them. Anyone wishes me to buy one for 15 dollars so I would become a bitcurrency trillionaire by market value?

 

The current bitcoins are just a pyramid scam. One can't really use bitcoins in real world. Or perhaps can, but then again, the person have to pay $35 fees and wait few hours to get the transaction through. A long wait and a lot of money for a pizza or ice cream. 

 

 

[quandow]

Bitcoin is here to stay. It's a mainstay currency for the global shadow economy which is growing every year. Government currencies are exactly the same as Bitcoin any more. There is no longer a U.S. gold standard, the numbers making up the 'Murikan economy are imaginary figures dreamed up by The Fed (which is NOT a government agency but rather a private bank which LOANS this "money" TO the U.S. AT INTEREST - most folks don't know this!). ANY currency is only as solid as the public's belief it is solvent.

[madmitch]

There's a lot of misunderstanding regarding Bitcoin and other crypto-currencies. I've invested a small amount in Ethereum and a few other tokens and have therefore tried to learn a bit more. If anyone is interested there's an excellent, but quite lengthy article from the New York Times attached, which really helps explain the technology behind cryptos.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/16/magazine/beyond-the-bitcoin-bubble.html

[12DrinkMore]

5 hours ago, quandow said:

The Fed is NOT a government agency but rather a private bank which LOANS this "money" TO the U.S. AT INTEREST - most folks don't know this!

 

Total nonsense.

 

You should not believe all the drivel that abounds on the internet.

 

The Fed returns the interest it receives on the Treasuries in purchased as part of monetary policy BACK to the US Treasury department. You can check on their website and accounts. The are all public.

 

Or you can read the New York Times.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/11/business/economy/fed-returns-77-billion-in-profits-to-treasury.html

 

Quote

 

WASHINGTON — The Federal Reserve said on Tuesday that it contributed $76.9 billion in profits to the Treasury Department last year, slightly less than its record 2010 transfer but much more than in any other previous year.

The Fed is required by law to turn over its profits to the Treasury each year, a highly lucrative byproduct of the central bank’s continuing campaign to stimulate economic growth.

Almost 97 percent of the Fed’s income was generated by interest payments on its investment portfolio, including $2.5 trillion in Treasury securities and mortgage-backed securities, which it has amassed in an effort to decrease borrowing costs for businesses and consumers by reducing long-term interest rates.

 

 

 

[sevenhills]

How Bitcoin works !
        Yep! I reckon a close enough analogy:

        A lot of monkeys lived near a village.

One day a merchant came to the village to buy these monkeys!

He announced that he would buy the monkeys @ $100 each.

 

The villagers thought that this man was mad.

They thought how can somebody buy stray monkeys at $100 each?

Still, some people caught some monkeys and gave them to this merchant and he gave $100 for each monkey.

This news spread like wildfire and people caught monkeys and sold them to the merchant.

 

After a few days, the merchant announced that he would buy monkeys @ 200 each.

The lazy villagers also ran around to catch the remaining monkeys!

They sold the remaining monkeys @ $ 200 each.

 

Then the merchant announced that he would buy monkeys @ 500 each!

The villagers started to lose sleep! ... They caught six or seven monkeys, which was all that was left and got $ 500 each.

 

The villagers were waiting anxiously for the next announcement.

Then the merchant announced that he was going home for a week and  when he returned, he would buy monkeys @ 1000 each!

He asked his employee to take care of the monkeys he bought. He was alone taking care of all the monkeys in a cage.

The merchant went home.

 

The villagers were very sad as there were no more monkeys left for them to sell  at $1000 each.☹

 

Then the employee told them that he would sell some monkeys @ $ 700 each secretly.

This news spread like fire!  Since the merchant would buy the monkeys @ 1000 each, there would be a $ 300 profit for each monkey.

 

The next day, villagers made a queue near the monkey cage.

The employee sold all the monkeys at 700 each. The rich bought monkeys in big lots.  The poor borrowed money from money lenders and also bought monkeys!

 

The villagers took care of their monkeys & waited for the merchant to return.

But nobody came! ... Then they ran to the employee..

But he had already left too !

 

The villagers then realized that they had bought the useless stray monkeys @ 700 each and were unable to sell them!

The Bitcoin will be the next monkey business

 

It will make a lot of people bankrupt and a few people filthy rich in this monkey business.

That's how it will work....

[seancbk]

8 hours ago, madmitch said:

There's a lot of misunderstanding regarding Bitcoin and other crypto-currencies. I've invested a small amount in Ethereum and a few other tokens and have therefore tried to learn a bit more. If anyone is interested there's an excellent, but quite lengthy article from the New York Times attached, which really helps explain the technology behind cryptos.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/16/magazine/beyond-the-bitcoin-bubble.html

And for people who can't be bothered reading long complex articles, here is a video even my 10 year old nephew could understand. 
 

 

 

 

[ToS2014]

17 hours ago, quandow said:

Bitcoin is here to stay. It's a mainstay currency for the global shadow economy which is growing every year. Government currencies are exactly the same as Bitcoin any more. There is no longer a U.S. gold standard, the numbers making up the 'Murikan economy are imaginary figures dreamed up by The Fed (which is NOT a government agency but rather a private bank which LOANS this "money" TO the U.S. AT INTEREST - most folks don't know this!). ANY currency is only as solid as the public's belief it is solvent.

Very true.  Have you ever had a dollar bill in your pocket, (you referenced the US FED)?  Have you ever had a bitcoin in your pocket?  What is the exchange rate of a bitcoin to other state monetary systems?

[Old Croc]

4 hours ago, ToS2014 said:

Very true.  Have you ever had a dollar bill in your pocket, (you referenced the US FED)?  Have you ever had a bitcoin in your pocket?  What is the exchange rate of a bitcoin to other state monetary systems?

1 Bitcoin equals

338841.46 Thai Baht

 

[ExpatOilWorker]

22 hours ago, quandow said:

Bitcoin is here to stay. It's a mainstay currency for the global shadow economy which is growing every year. Government currencies are exactly the same as Bitcoin any more. There is no longer a U.S. gold standard, the numbers making up the 'Murikan economy are imaginary figures dreamed up by The Fed (which is NOT a government agency but rather a private bank which LOANS this "money" TO the U.S. AT INTEREST - most folks don't know this!). ANY currency is only as solid as the public's belief it is solvent.

 

[Guest]

No, Bitcoin is now 337431.22 Thai Baht... and that's one of the problems..

 

 

Quote

 

Stripe to end Bitcoin payment support

It said fewer online merchants now wanted to accept the cryptocurrency.

Rising fees and longer transaction times as a result of price fluctuations also lessened its appeal, it said.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-42798935

Bitcoin is not a currency which can be used. Once there is more and more people who realise that, the value of bitcoin is going to be a fraction it is today. 

[ExpatOilWorker]

Still room to....fall!

[12DrinkMore]

1 hour ago, Old Croc said:

1 Bitcoin equals

338841.46 Thai Baht

 

 

No its not

 

370,890

oh!

394,990

oh!

355,000

oh!

f6ck it!......

[midas]

18 hours ago, 12DrinkMore said:

 

Total nonsense.

 

 

 

 

 

no it not nonsense at all

 

Who Owns The Federal Reserve?

The Fed is privately owned. Its shareholders are private banks

 

Quote

If the Fed were actually a federal agency, the government could issue U.S. legal tender directly, avoiding an unnecessary interest-bearing debt to private middlemen who create the money out of thin air themselves. Among other benefits to the taxpayers. a truly “federal” Federal Reserve could lend the full faith and credit of the United States to state and local governments interest-free, cutting the cost of infrastructure in half, restoring the thriving local economies of earlier decades.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/who-owns-the-federal-reserve/10489

[12DrinkMore]

8 minutes ago, midas said:

no it not nonsense at all

 

Who Owns The Federal Reserve?

The Fed is privately owned. Its shareholders are private banks

 

https://www.globalresearch.ca/who-owns-the-federal-reserve/10489

 

That article is utterly disengenuous.

 

It would take me a long time to go through and show the blatant misrepresentation of the activities of the Fed.

 

The Fed has three mandates.

 

- To support the banking system.

 

- To influence the rate of inflation and keep it around 2%

 

- To maintain "full' employment.

 

The financial crisis required some unusual policies, and sure, a few large financial companies were rescued from the brink, which naturally leads to the "not fair, they should have failed" calls. And a few guys made a load of money and others lost a load.

 

People will always hate the banks because of the immense power they exert in the economy. But very few actually understand how the system works. Take two common phrases, uttered fairly often by politicians, economists and the media.

 

Fractional Reserve System. This simply does not exist outside of text books. Banks do not, and never have, taken in deposits and lent out 90%.

 

Lending from reserves. Banks do not, cannot and never have, lent out from reserves. It is simply not possible.

 

[midas]

1 hour ago, 12DrinkMore said:

 

That article is utterly disengenuous.

 

It would take me a long time to go through and show the blatant misrepresentation of the activities of the Fed.

 

The Fed has three mandates.

 

- To support the banking system.

 

- To influence the rate of inflation and keep it around 2%

 

- To maintain "full' employment.

 

The financial crisis required some unusual policies, and sure, a few large financial companies were rescued from the brink, which naturally leads to the "not fair, they should have failed" calls. And a few guys made a load of money and others lost a load.

 

People will always hate the banks because of the immense power they exert in the economy. But very few actually understand how the system works. Take two common phrases, uttered fairly often by politicians, economists and the media.

 

Fractional Reserve System. This simply does not exist outside of text books. Banks do not, and never have, taken in deposits and lent out 90%.

 

Lending from reserves. Banks do not, cannot and never have, lent out from reserves. It is simply not possible.

 

I don't agree with anything you say and it's not the article that is disingenuous- it is your post! Because you seem to be claiming the Federal reserve is a legitimate body who operate in the best interests of the American people  

 

You didn't have to look any further than the very harsh criticism levelled against this body  by former Congressman Ron  Paul who was the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology on   Financial Services, which oversees the Federal Reserve. Despite his best efforts the Federal reserve has never allowed an audit of its activities. Why is this?

 

You said " The financial crisis required some unusual policies, and sure, a few large financial companies were rescued from the brink". Now that is a totally disingenuous statement!

 

After the financial crisis you refer to Alan Greenspan fought tooth and nail to keep the derivatives market totally deregulated. Why? Is that in the best interests of the American people?

 

So today the derivatives market has grown even more since 2008 and is still totally unregulated — often estimated at more that $1.2 quadrillion at the high-end. Some market analysts estimate the derivatives market today at more than 10 times the size of the total world gross domestic product.

Is that in the best interests of the American people?

[ExpatOilWorker]

5 hours ago, 12DrinkMore said:

 

That article is utterly disengenuous.

 

It would take me a long time to go through and show the blatant misrepresentation of the activities of the Fed.

 

The Fed has three mandates.

 

- To support the banking system.

 

- To influence the rate of inflation and keep it around 2%

 

- To maintain "full' employment.

 

The financial crisis required some unusual policies, and sure, a few large financial companies were rescued from the brink, which naturally leads to the "not fair, they should have failed" calls. And a few guys made a load of money and others lost a load.

 

People will always hate the banks because of the immense power they exert in the economy. But very few actually understand how the system works. Take two common phrases, uttered fairly often by politicians, economists and the media.

 

Fractional Reserve System. This simply does not exist outside of text books. Banks do not, and never have, taken in deposits and lent out 90%.

 

Lending from reserves. Banks do not, cannot and never have, lent out from reserves. It is simply not possible.

 

The FED have a dual mandate:

 

This mandate was originally specified by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and was most recently clarified by an amendment to the Federal Reserve Act in 1977.

According to this legislation, the Federal Reserve's mandate is "to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.

 

Maximum employment is VERY different from full employment. It is a clever way to give the FED space for its policy.

 

The rest of your post is also at least partly wrong. You have a lot to learn about banking.

Edited January 24, 2018 by ExpatOilWorker

[12DrinkMore]

2 hours ago, midas said:

I don't agree with anything you say and it's not the article that is disingenuous- it is your post! Because you seem to be claiming the Federal reserve is a legitimate body who operate in the best interests of the American people  

 

You didn't have to look any further than the very harsh criticism levelled against this body  by former Congressman Ron  Paul who was the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology on   Financial Services, which oversees the Federal Reserve. Despite his best efforts the Federal reserve has never allowed an audit of its activities. Why is this?

 

You said " The financial crisis required some unusual policies, and sure, a few large financial companies were rescued from the brink". Now that is a totally disingenuous statement!

 

After the financial crisis you refer to Alan Greenspan fought tooth and nail to keep the derivatives market totally deregulated. Why? Is that in the best interests of the American people?

 

So today the derivatives market has grown even more since 2008 and is still totally unregulated — often estimated at more that $1.2 quadrillion at the high-end. Some market analysts estimate the derivatives market today at more than 10 times the size of the total world gross domestic product.

Is that in the best interests of the American people?

 

Hi,

 

Ron Paul only wanted the physical gold held by the Fed to be audited. Nothing else that I am aware of. I don't know why Bernanke refused, except that it would set a precedent and be a total expensive pain in the bum. The Germans got all their gold back earlier than promised.

 

The finance companies had to be rescued otherwise the entire global financial edifice could have collapsed. It was a time of incredible stress. The Fed probably did way too much, but considered it prudent. If the payments system had collapsed then the majority of the world's trade would have ground to a halt.

 

Greenspan constantly ran with the theme, "the markets will sort themselves out", he stated that it was impossible to say that a bubble had developed until it popped. It was his policy. He also said after he had retired that his "models were wrong". He had been successful for a long time "letting the markets rip" and probably did not want to change horses at the age of 80. Maybe he should have retired two decades earlier.

 

The issue with derivatives is are you measuring the nominal value or the value at risk?

 

(BTW I neglected to point out that the author the article you referenced, Ellen Brown, is in the business of selling her book. Nothing like a hint of conspiracy theory to move the numbers)

 

I have not heard any Fed bashers for a long time until this came up today. Even Schiff and Kaiser have gone quiet.

[12DrinkMore]

3 minutes ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

The FED have a dual mandate:

 

This mandate was originally specified by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and was most recently clarified by an amendment to the Federal Reserve Act in 1977.

According to this legislation, the Federal Reserve's mandate is "to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.

 

The rest of your post is also at least partly wrong. You have a lot to learn about banking.

 

The primary function of the Fed is to ensure that the payment system functions. That was why it was set up in the first place, to act as a Central Bank and lender of last resort. It supports the banks.

 

Your maximum versus my full employment is mere semantics.

 

Stable prices and mderate long-term interest rates are basically inflation control and the 2% is the level set.

 

Otherwise

 

Fractional reserve banking does not exist in the banking world.

 

Reserves cannot be lent out.

 

If you disagree with any of those two statements please tell me why I am wrong, not that I am wrong and do not understand. I can show both are correct. But as challenger it is up to you to show they are wrong.

 

[ExpatOilWorker]

1 minute ago, 12DrinkMore said:

 

The primary function of the Fed is to ensure that the payment system functions. That was why it was set up in the first place, to act as a Central Bank and lender of last resort. It supports the banks.

 

Your maximum versus my full employment is mere semantics.

 

Stable prices and mderate long-term interest rates are basically inflation control and the 2% is the level set.

 

Otherwise

 

Fractional reserve banking does not exist in the banking world.

 

Reserves cannot be lent out.

 

If you disagree with any of those two statements please tell me why I am wrong, not that I am wrong and do not understand. I can show both are correct. But as challenger it is up to you to show they are wrong.

 

To be precise, certain financial institutions hold reserve balances at the Federal Reserve (depository institutions, Federal Home Loan Banks, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, etc.). The federal funds rate is the interest these institutions charge when they lend reserves to other institutions overnight.

 

 

[12DrinkMore]

59 minutes ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

To be precise, certain financial institutions hold reserve balances at the Federal Reserve (depository institutions, Federal Home Loan Banks, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, etc.). The federal funds rate is the interest these institutions charge when they lend reserves to other institutions overnight.

 

Gimme a break.

 

That is not lending out reserves to customers, which is the way it is usually interpreted. It is moving funds around in the Central Bank pool of bank reserves to balance the books overnight as part of the daily activity.

 

I would really like you to argue for 

 

Quote

The rest of your post is also at least partly wrong. You have a lot to learn about banking.

 

 

Edited January 24, 2018 by 12DrinkMore

[ExpatOilWorker]

2 hours ago, 12DrinkMore said:

 

The primary function of the Fed is to ensure that the payment system functions. That was why it was set up in the first place, to act as a Central Bank and lender of last resort. It supports the banks.

 

Your maximum versus my full employment is mere semantics.

 

Stable prices and mderate long-term interest rates are basically inflation control and the 2% is the level set.

 

Otherwise

 

Fractional reserve banking does not exist in the banking world.

 

Reserves cannot be lent out.

 

If you disagree with any of those two statements please tell me why I am wrong, not that I am wrong and do not understand. I can show both are correct. But as challenger it is up to you to show they are wrong.

 

Commercial banks borrow from the Federal Reserve primarily to meet reserve requirements when their cash on hand is low before the close of business. To put itself back over the minimum reserve threshold, a bank borrows money from the government's central bank utilizing what is known as the discount window. Borrowing at the discount window is convenient because it is always available and the lending process includes no negotiation or extensive documentation. The downside, however, is the discount rate, or the interest rate at which the Federal Reserve lends to banks, is higher than if borrowing from another bank.

Reserve Requirements Explained

Prior to the 1930s, the government imposed no regulations on banks as to the amount of cash they had to keep on hand relative to their deposit liabilities. Following the stock market crash of 1929, depositors, fearful of bank collapses, arrived in masses to withdraw their money. This caused many banks to become insolvent, as the amounts requested in withdrawals exceeded the cash they had on hand.

The government responded by implementing reserve requirements that forced banks to keep a percentage of their total deposit liabilities on hand as cash. As of 2015, the reserve requirement for banks with greater than $103.6 million in deposits is 10%.

Utilizing the Federal Reserve

Occasionally, robust lending activity depletes a commercial bank's cash reserves to where they fall below the government's mandated reserve requirement. At this point, the bank has two options to avoid running afoul of the law. It can borrow from another bank, or it can borrow from the Federal Reserve.

Borrowing from another bank is the cheaper option, but many commercial banks, especially when only taking out an overnight loan to meet reserve requirements, elect to borrow from the discount window because of its simplicity.

 

[12DrinkMore]

10 hours ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

Occasionally, robust lending activity depletes a commercial bank's cash reserves to where they fall below the government's mandated reserve requirement. At this point, the bank has two options to avoid running afoul of the law. It can borrow from another bank, or it can borrow from the Federal Reserve.

Borrowing from another bank is the cheaper option, but many commercial banks, especially when only taking out an overnight loan to meet reserve requirements, elect to borrow from the discount window because of its simplicity.

 

Thanks for the reply and quote from an unknown source.

 

Firstly I think the above quote has answered the question.

 

There is no effective restraint on a bank's lending through a deposit reserve requirement as the bank can always borrow the reserve funds overnight to meet the regulations from another bank or the Fed at the discount window.

 

The banks have also been active in using technology. The 10% requirement only applies to certain deposit accounts, by using "sweeping software" the banks shuffle these funds around so that there is no reserve requirement.

 

https://files.stlouisfed.org/files/htdocs/publications/review/01/0101ra.pdf

 

Quote

In January 1994, the Federal Reserve Board permitted  a commercial bank to begin using a new type of computer software that dynamically reclassifies balances in its customer accounts from transaction deposits to a type of personal-saving deposit, the money market deposit account (MMDA).1 This reclassification reduces the bank’s statutory required reserves while leaving unchanged its customers’ perceived holdings of transaction deposits.

 

And from wiki.

 

Quote

Even in the United States, which retains formal (though now mostly irrelevant) reserve requirements, the notion of controlling the money supply by targeting the quantity of base money fell out of favor many years ago, and now the pragmatic explanation of monetary policy refers to targeting the interest rate to control the broad money supply.

 

The Fractional Reserve System describes taking in customer deposits and lending them out whilst retaining some percentage, usually mentioned as 10% in the text books. This is simply not how the system works.

 

If there is a willing borrower and the bank is willing to make a loan to that customer, the loan will always be made (provided the Capital Reserve Ratio is maintained). The process is incredibly simple, two book-keeping entries are made. Voila! 

 

Don't believe me.

 

Here's the Bank of England

 

Quote

This article explains how the majority of money in the modern economy is created by commercial banks making loans. Money creation in practice differs from some popular misconceptions — banks do not act simply as intermediaries, lending out deposits that savers place with them, and nor do they ‘multiply up’ central bank money to create new loans and deposits. 

 

https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/quarterly-bulletin/2014/q1/money-creation-in-the-modern-economy

 

Fractional Reserve Banking is not how the banks work.

 

So where do we stand on this at the moment?

 

Quote

the rest of your post is also at least partly wrong. You have a lot to learn about banking.

 

[ChiangMaiLightning2143]

Is Coinbase safe?

 

To fund the account it asks for my banking login details.

[ExpatOilWorker]

5 hours ago, 12DrinkMore said:

 

Thanks for the reply and quote from an unknown source.

 

Firstly I think the above quote has answered the question.

 

There is no effective restraint on a bank's lending through a deposit reserve requirement as the bank can always borrow the reserve funds overnight to meet the regulations from another bank or the Fed at the discount window.

 

The banks have also been active in using technology. The 10% requirement only applies to certain deposit accounts, by using "sweeping software" the banks shuffle these funds around so that there is no reserve requirement.

 

https://files.stlouisfed.org/files/htdocs/publications/review/01/0101ra.pdf

 

 

And from wiki.

 

 

The Fractional Reserve System describes taking in customer deposits and lending them out whilst retaining some percentage, usually mentioned as 10% in the text books. This is simply not how the system works.

 

If there is a willing borrower and the bank is willing to make a loan to that customer, the loan will always be made (provided the Capital Reserve Ratio is maintained). The process is incredibly simple, two book-keeping entries are made. Voila! 

 

Don't believe me.

 

Here's the Bank of England

 

 

https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/quarterly-bulletin/2014/q1/money-creation-in-the-modern-economy

 

Fractional Reserve Banking is not how the banks work.

 

So where do we stand on this at the moment?

 

 

You are a fast learner and may actually know a bit or two about banking.

 

[madmitch]

4 hours ago, ChiangMaiLightning2143 said:

Is Coinbase safe?

 

To fund the account it asks for my banking login details.

Banking login details? Be careful you aren't on a fake site! Never give your banking login details, just account name, number and branch codes.

 

I used a credit card and even then had to ring the credit card company twice in order to get the transaction approved.

[ChiangMaiLightning2143]

I did not proceed though it is the genuine site and Coinbase is a mainstream company that serves US persons. Clicked “Charles Schwab” a window opens asking my username and passcode. Usually with these things they do a dummy transfer of less than $1 that you verify to ensure you are the valid account holder.

 

 

 

 

[midas]

21 hours ago, 12DrinkMore said:

 

 Ron Paul only wanted the physical gold held by the Fed to be audited. Nothing else that I am aware of.    

 

That is incorrect! Perhaps you don't know as much about the Fed as you think you do?

In fact Ron Paul and his son have both tried unsuccessfully. It's obvious this thoroughly corrupt institution has a great deal to hide from the American public.

 

Quote

Senate Democrats blocked a vote Tuesday on legislation from Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., that would have required an audit and greater transparency on monetary policy-making from the Federal Reserve, the powerful central banking system that sets interest rates and manages the money supply.

 

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-01-12/democrats-kill-rand-pauls-audit-the-fed-bill-though-sanders-votes-yes

[ChiangMaiLightning2143]

[leemo]

Scaremongers are a dime a dozen!

 

Last year the Bitcoin price dropped more than 20% 5 times, so you could use this easily verifiable fact to scare the unwary.

 

But that would be misleading, because after each of those drops the Bitcoin price bounced back by an equally verifiable 50-150%. It didn't reach $20k from 10c by accident.