a)please explain?

B)it isn't?where does all the interest go then?banking and finance degree's for what,what does a person need to learn to print money.they are all crooks.if one after another a jew(not being racist or anti-semite,jst hinting towards alot of online and real world conspiracies) is elected as the FED governer,i don't think the president is electing anyone.

c)wealth is never created or destroyed,it is merely transfered.on the other side money can be printed out of thin air and created big time and that surely has happened.

If by interest you mean the profit the Fed Makes...  It  almost all completely goes to the US Treasury and is used to pay for the US' deficit spending and pay down the national debt.

wrong,as the only money created is the principal so there is no way to pay back the debt as the money for the interest doesn't not exist.if this was then the US debt would not be going up but down.

tresury gets money from taxes and from selling bonds.

Outside which... yes... the President nominated the next head of the Federal Reserve.  This literally just happened so how you can argue it doesn't i'm not quite sure.  

Not sure what anyone having to be Jewish has to do with anything.... but another Federal Reserve chairmain blows a hole in even that nonsensical argument.

Paul Vockler wasn't  Jewish.  

Neither was William Miller, the guy before him.

I mean shit..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chairmen_of_the_Federal_Reserve

Are there a lot of Jewish Bankers?  Sure.   Why is that?  It became a tradition because medevil law excluded them from a lot of trades that were considedred "Good jobs" leaving them with lesser jobs and jobs often considered "sinful".

yes everyone isn't jewish but they are pretty closely linked.

i was jst hinting towards the conspiracy not confirming it.

jewish or not,there does seem to be a very well connected banking elite which include alot of jewish community.Rothschilds are jewish.

i don't blam them as jews are normally a mercantile and buisness community.

alot of others like roketfellars,morgans,warburgs,vandernbilts,du ponts,schiff's,astors,etc are in it

Kasz216 said:
Yes, wealth can be created and destroyed. It's ridiculous to think otherwise.

You really think that there is equal wealth today as there was during the Middle Ages? That people lived as well then as they do now?

that isn't wealth,that is called improving standard of living because of improving productivity because of industrial revolution

the standard may have increased but the expectations have also.and the classes still remain and will always remain.it isn't like the middle classes back then worked and today don't.

its called efficiency.

Read a bit on cycles and you will understand what is happening.

Read a book called 'THE YUGAS',it talks about the IRON AGE ending around 1700 AD,around the time when industrial revolution happen.

Also Read a book called 'DECLINE OF THE WEST',it talks about the modern FAUSTIAN WESTERN CIVILIZATION starting after the collapse of roman empire around 500AD in the western europe,now we are living in the ending stages of that civilizations,hence the improved standard of living.most of the world doesn't live as well as Western World

Computers didn't improve anything,

computers need energy to function and it costs them to maintain jst like slaves did back in ancient times or should i say just 100-200 years ago.they do what you tell them to do.They jst added efficiency but the expectations of people grew with them.

mass manufacturing technology hasn't improved anything.

mass manufacturing only exists because of globalization and slave labour which have all been there in the past.they rise and collapse.

Under Genghis Khan,there was globalization but it also had alot of slavery jst like today in china and developing world

Or hell. All the gold mining hasn't increased wealth at all?

gold mining isn't wealth,it is jst a substitute of wealth.

gold and silver and other metals were used because of their rarity and divisibility not because they are wealth.

gold and silver might have increased but so has global population in the last 100 years big time,so when you divide it by the number of people,it comes down to the same amount.

EXAMPLE: if it takes 1 person to mine 1 ounce of gold in 10 days and if it takes 1 person to grow 10 apples in 10 days,they 1 ounce is equal to 10 apples.it is the exchange of the value of a persons work.

GOLD isn't money itself.it is the human labour that gives it its value

If you believe in a gold backed currency. More gold = more wealth right?

no i don't.

gold restricts a governments power to foolishly spend and steal the wealth of its citizen by idiotic politicians.

throughout human history gold and silver have been money or some other rare commodities.

Also the welfare state,socialism and communism of the last 100 years all over the world was only possible because of the gold standard being out.No other way would the governments be able to maintain or do what they have down in the last 100 years.

the entire world is in debt at this point.

welfare states and subsidies can't be maintained any longer.

the bankers were still restricted untill Nixon delinked the dollar from gold,since then the world economy is one big ponzi scheme.

all the banks and organisations and ideologies like FED,WORLD BANK,IMF,UNITED NATIONS,SOVIET COMMUNISM were created to bring global communism but it just isn't sustainable as we are seeing now with the global economy trembling.

the only reason humans work is because they want happiness and the only way to get happiness is to follow their own unique path but when you have global banks and organisations forcing equality and socialism and utopia on earth,that cannot happen.

that is the leveling of men.men are not equal,weak will like it cause that brings the best men down but the best men get stagnated and do not find a reason to work any more and then socialism collapses,it has happened over and over again in history

A poor person lives better now then he did 40-50 years ago when wealth disparity was smaller?

how do you define better?

that is the flaw.you seem to be following a stream of thought that their is one way of good life,one way of betterment.

your mentality leaks socialistic ideas.

i live in india,i can tell you that we are not better off.

in earlier days only men worked,then because of inflation women started working and children need to get more and more degrees when in older days high school students used to get work easily.

this isn't better life,it is the valuation of life through material means like how many Telivisions and Cars or Computers one has.If the person doesn't get the time to use them,then what use is it?

i am not for wealth equality,i am more so about wealth inequality as that is what given men incentive to work.

If a giant EMP wiped out all computers and technology across the world. Everyone isn't suddenly poorer then the day before?

you don't seem to understand how money works neither do you understand how humans work