What would you do?

[Tribunal]

You have been invited to participate in a convention to establish a new nation. You have the Constitution for the United States, the Declaration of Independence [for the United States], your Scriptures, history, and other tools to help you.

You have been tasked with membership in the Commerce Committee to establish a monetary system for our new nation. What would you do? How would your system work?

[Rincon]

I would quiz the Prophet carefully and do exactly what he told me to do, nothing more, nothing less.

[lundbaek]

And if the Prophet politely declined to tell you what to do, as might be the case, what then ? He just might tell you basically the same thing the Lord told Oliver Cowdery, to study the matter out in your mind, make your decision, and ask the Lord if your decisions is right.

[gkearney]

Every nation even new ones have a past. Just where is this new nation anyway. Who was the previous colonial administration? What is the history? Are you breaking away from a nation state with whom you have had hostile relations? Are you now or likey to be recognized by by other nations? We really need more information to answer this question.

[lundbaek]

There is some group calling themselves the de jure republic trying to accomplish something of that sort now in America. Anybody kn ow more about it?

[Tribunal]

The land would be America and the nation would be after the collapse of the United States of America.

[alexoyarzun]

Well, first of all, you must understand one thing. The United States of America and its history is nothing remotely close to the kingdom of God, which is what we are striving to bring to earth. In order to establish the kingdom on earth, we must reverse the cultural trend of the past 10,000 years, which is that of the individual (the self) over the whole. The pure love of Christ is the only answer to our problems. We must establish a culture that is committed to the pure love of Christ. In order to do this, we must begin by recognizing that any of the political or economic systems of the past 10,000 have been based on the use of force and have no room in the kingdom of God. Love is never forced. Therefore, we must begin as individuals, to commit to the idea of non-violence, which is at the root of the pure love of Christ. And if we commit to the idea of non-violence then we can't participate in any of the current political systems, which are based on violence. This means that we must serve Christ above any country, including the United States of America. This is the first step in changing the world. Once there is some type of momentum in this movement then the world will begin to change, the systems will begin to change, and the 1000 year reign of Christ will be near. Until then, it is business as usual, and nothing will change. If we believe for one second that by imposing a certain economic or political system is going to produce any change in this country, without changing the hearts of the individuals within it, then we are dead wrong. "Charity is the pure love of Christ, and it endureth forever; and whoso is found possessed of it at the last day, it shall be well with him." Moroni 7:47 (http://www.thenewcovenantforthenewera.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

[Tribunal]

First - welcome to the Freedom Forum.

So Alex, as a member of the Committee on Commerce your recommendation for a new system of currency would be based on love?

That's beautiful!

A man walks into a car dealership to purchase a car...

"Mr. Car Salesman, I'd like to buy a car from you?"

"Sure, now give me some lov'n."

Can 'love' really be a medium of exchange? How would that work?


Oh, and I enjoyed the content in that link you provided. Looks good!

[Ferg]

If you think about it, we've already been down this road, when this nation was first founded, they didn't have a set of rules to go by,they had to find inspiration as they went along, they relied heavely upon divine guidance, as to make sure that the princapals of freedom will stand the test of time. History repeats it's self.

[Tribunal]

Okay let me give an example of what I'm talking about: I've often wondered if a population standard would better serve our nation than even a gold standard. For the sake of this discussion we'll call our new currency the Talent. A census will be conducted every ten years and for every person living in our nation the government will have one thousand Talents in circulation. For our nation of three hundred million people that would equate to three hundred billion Talents. That is about one-third the amount of Dollars in circulation right now. This should stabilize the value of the Talent and should benefit our economy.

Comments? Disagreements? Suggestions?

[Jason]

Okay let me give an example of what I'm talking about: I've often wondered if a population standard would better serve our nation than even a gold standard. For the sake of this discussion we'll call our new currency the Talent. A census will be conducted every ten years and for every person living in our nation the government will have one thousand Talents in circulation. For our nation of three hundred million people that would equate to three hundred billion Talents. That is about one-third the amount of Dollars in circulation right now. This should stabilize the value of the Talent and should benefit our economy.

Comments? Disagreements? Suggestions?

Fine as long as the people have a voice and a will in the process. Real representation! If the masses choose wickedness....all bets are off!

[sbsion]

There is some group calling themselves the de jure republic trying to accomplish something of that sort now in America. Anybody kn ow more about it?

yup......won't happen.......

[lundbaek]

I don't believe the de jure republic will happen either. They have about as much chance as did Helmut Hßbeler and Sophie Scholl. But I admire those trying to establish it. At least they are trying to do something in a right direction. Just like the Constitution Party, the John Birch Society, the Tea Parties, and other orgainzations dedicated to restoration of the government the Lord intended America and eventually the entire world to have. 3 of my acquaintances have gotten into it.

[alexoyarzun]

First - welcome to the Freedom Forum.

So Alex, as a member of the Committee on Commerce your recommendation for a new system of currency would be based on love?

That's beautiful!

A man walks into a car dealership to purchase a car...

"Mr. Car Salesman, I'd like to buy a car from you?"

"Sure, now give me some lov'n."

Can 'love' really be a medium of exchange? How would that work?


Oh, and I enjoyed the content in that link you provided. Looks good!

Hi Tribunal,
I didn't realize you had replied, since I'm new I'm still gettin' used to this...
Anyway, I know it sounds kind of corny, right? But, this is the basic jist of what I'm trying to say: The system of currency is not the problem. Any currency system will fail if the individuals utilizing the system are not entrenched within the spirit of the Lord. By the same token, any currency system will succeed if the individual utilizing the system are entrenched within the spirit of the Lord. The currency system is not the problem. Neither are the political or economic systems that we live under. The problem is always the spirit of the individuals under these systems. Corrupted spirits bring about corrupted results. Christ-like spirits bring about efficient sustainable results.

So, as as a member of the Committee on Commerce my recommendation for a new system of currency would be as follows:
The currency system is irrelevant and therefore to leave the current system or to establish a new currency system will not produce any sustainable changes in our society. Therefore, I would recommend to dismantle the committee and instead instruct everyone to spread the word of the Lord and to try and emulate his ways in every way possible. This is the most effective way to improve the system of currency in any given society. Just a thought... cheers Tribunal!

[Jason]

First - welcome to the Freedom Forum.

So Alex, as a member of the Committee on Commerce your recommendation for a new system of currency would be based on love?

That's beautiful!

A man walks into a car dealership to purchase a car...

"Mr. Car Salesman, I'd like to buy a car from you?"

"Sure, now give me some lov'n."

Can 'love' really be a medium of exchange? How would that work?


Oh, and I enjoyed the content in that link you provided. Looks good!

Hi Tribunal,
I didn't realize you had replied, since I'm new I'm still gettin' used to this...
Anyway, I know it sounds kind of corny, right? But, this is the basic jist of what I'm trying to say: The system of currency is not the problem. Any currency system will fail if the individuals utilizing the system are not entrenched within the spirit of the Lord. By the same token, any currency system will succeed if the individual utilizing the system are entrenched within the spirit of the Lord. The currency system is not the problem. Neither are the political or economic systems that we live under. The problem is always the spirit of the individuals under these systems. Corrupted spirits bring about corrupted results. Christ-like spirits bring about efficient sustainable results.

So, as as a member of the Committee on Commerce my recommendation for a new system of currency would be as follows:
The currency system is irrelevant and therefore to leave the current system or to establish a new currency system will not produce any sustainable changes in our society. Therefore, I would recommend to dismantle the committee and instead instruct everyone to spread the word of the Lord and to try and emulate his ways in every way possible. This is the most effective way to improve the system of currency in any given society. Just a thought... cheers Tribunal!

Well said!

Why A Hedge Fund Comprised Of Junior Congressional Democrats Should Outperform The Market By 9%

That insider trading in Washignton occurs with a greater frequency than at Galleon is no secret. Courtesy of various loopholes, members of both the House and Senate have long been allowed to trade on inside information, something that grabbed the media's attention when back in November 2005 someone, somewhere sent the stock of USG Corp., W.R. Grace & Co., and Crown Holdings higher even though there was no public information. Only later would it become known that then-Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist would deliver a speech announcing new legislation to relieve companies of asbestos litigation. Subsequent studies (such as Ziobrowski et al's 2004 paper “Abnormal Returns from the Common Stock Investments of the United States Senate.”) confirmed substantial market outperformance by members of Senate. A few days ago, Ziobrowski et al, have released a follow up study "Abnormal Returns From the Common Stock Investments of Members of the U.S. House of Representatives" which confirms that not only do congressional critters consistently outperform the market, but does a granular analysis of just who it is in congress that should consider leaving the public arena, and raising capital to start their own hedge fund: simply said, junior, democratic congressmen beat the market by roughly the same amount, with the same consistency (and probably with the same Sharpe ratio) that allows SAC to charge 3% and 35%.

In a nutshell, the latest stereotype is that if one is a junior democrat in Congress, and one trades for their own discretionary account, one most likely is doing so using insider information.

From the authors:

We find that stocks purchased by Members of the U.S. House of Representatives earn statistically significant positive abnormal returns. The returns outperform the market by 55 basis points per month (over 6% annually). As additional evidence of information advantage, the trade-weighted portfolio of purchased stocks significantly outperforms the equal-weighted portfolio indicating that Representatives invested much larger amounts in those stocks that performed best. The regression coefficients also suggest that House Members favor the common stocks of smaller growth companies with slightly above-average risk.

Who is a better daytrader: republican or democrat?

When stock purchases are equal-weighted we find no significant abnormal returns for either Democrats or Republicans. When the portfolios are tradeweighted, the samples of both Democrats and Republicans produce positive, statistically significant CAPM alphas. Only the Democratic, trade-weighted portfolio yields a significant positive Fama-French alpha. Furthermore, the nested test for significance of party affiliation indicates that the Democratic sample significantly outperformed the Republican sample. The Democratic sample beat the market by 73 basis points per month (nearly 9% annually) versus only 18 basis points per month (approximately 2% annually) for the Republican sample.

One explanation for this bias:

Given the almost folkloric belief that Wall Street invariably favors Republicans, the superior performance of trades made by Democratic Representatives may seem surprising. However, it should be noted that Democrats controlled the House for 10 of the 17 years covered by this study. Furthermore, Democrats were deeply entrenched in the leadership of the House for decades prior to the study. Thus when Republicans finally took control in 1995, they arguably had far less experience at handling the reins of power and may therefore have been unable to immediately enjoy all its perquisites.

Additionally, greedy junior politicians are more adept at "beating" the market than more senior ones.

In addition, stocks purchased by Democratic Representatives significantly outperform stocks purchased by Republican Representatives. Stocks purchased by Representatives with the least seniority significantly outperformed stocks purchased by Representatives with the most seniority.

The explanation: risk versus return:

Again we find this result counterintuitive. In theory, Representatives with the most seniority possess the most power and thus should have the greatest opportunity to trade with an informational advantage. However, although the most senior Members may have the most opportunity, they may lack the strongest motive. It is no secret that money is the lifeblood of politics. Whereas Representatives with the longest seniority (in this case more than 16 years), have no trouble raising funds for campaigns, junkets and whatever other causes they may deem desirable owed to the power they wield, the financial condition of a freshman Congressman is far more precarious. His or her position is by no means secure, financially or otherwise. House members with the least seniority may have fewer opportunities to trade on privileged information, but they may be the most highly motivated to do so when the opportunities arise.

The conclusion.

In sum, the findings from this study of the U.S. House of Representatives’ common stock transactions are generally supportive of the previous study of the U.S. Senate. We find strong evidence that Members of the House have some type of nonpublic information which they use for personal gain. That having been said, abnormal returns earned by Members of the House are substantially smaller than those earned by Senators during approximately the same time period. These smaller returns are due presumably to less influence and power held by the individual Members. The nature and source or sources of information is unknown, but clearly further research is warranted. We recommend that congressional committees should be studied for abnormal returns and indications that members of those committees may favor stocks in industries their committees oversee. Abnormal returns associated with the common stocks of specific industries or companies should be investigated for patterns of potential misconduct. We suggest the examination of the relationships between campaign contributions, common stock acquisitions, and abnormal returns.

In other words, everyone is trading on inside information, but nobody more so than those who write the laws that determine just what is considered Insider information, and the penalties associated with it. In the meantime, let the public lynching spectacles of such prominently irrelevant fund managers as Raj Raj continue: the people need their bread and circuses. Especially as fund of funds round up all junior democrats and start roadshowing them to yield-hungry QIPs.

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/why-he ... m-market-9" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Fadel Gheit Throws Wall Street's Big Banks Under The Oil Speculating Bus

Public Relation people at Goldman Sachs can not be too happy about this.

Fadel Gheit, a veteran of Oppenheimer and oil and gas industry dating back to the Mobil era, went on record and called the Big Banks--Goldman Sachs. along with Morgan Stanley--out on manipulating the oil market during a Bloomberg TV interview on May 25.

Both Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley published notes on Monday, May 23, to clients recommending taking a long position on Brent crude oil. Specifically, Goldman boosted its year-end target for Brent by 20% to $120 per barrel from $105 and its 2012 forecast to $140 from $120. Goldman also raised its three-, six-, and twelve-month Brent price target to $115, $120 and $130 a barrel respectively. Morgan Stanley raised its 2011 Brent crude price forecast to $120 per barrel from $100 a barrel, and its 2012 forecast to $130 from $105.

Although the firm was not mentioned in the Bloomgerg interview, JP Morgan also reiterated its forecast that Brent should reach $130 a barrel by the third quarter of 2011.

Remember Goldman was the one telling clients on Monday April 11 to liquidate "CCCP” commodities basket for a 25% profit, which partly prompted a broad selloff in commodities including crude oil. Furthermore, at the time, Goldman said Brent would correct towards $105 a barrel in coming months.

So this flip flop just a short six weeks later not only contradicts to some of the macroeconomic projection of Goldman itself, but also prompted a fire storm of criticism even from its peers. (Morgan Stanley at least has been consistent with its commodity bullish position.)

I'd imagine Goldman's surprise bear call in April probably threw a lot of investment houses under the bus as most of them are consistent in their long commodity call, and most likely invest and advise clients accordingly.

Here are some notable quotes from Gheit:

“...They can invent reasons why oil prices go to $130 or $150, but history has shown that these people are able to move markets. It is not Exxon or BP or Shell that moves the oil markets. It is the financial players. It is the Goldman Sachs, the Morgan Stanley, all of the other guys. It is a shame on the government that allows them to get away with that.”

“It is not illegal. All banks need to make a profit. The M&A business is not doing too well. Therefore, they need to improve their profit outlook and commodities has been the area where they make a lot of money. Commodity speculation is now a big driving force in Wall Street."

"Why did they [Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley] control hundreds of millions of barrels of oil if they cannot refine or mine. Because it is because it is legal and they can get away with it. As long as they make a profit, that is fine. Basically, the consumer will pay the price. The economy will slow down because of the few that will make a huge amount of profits.”

"[CFTC] has absolutely done nothing. They talked about this for three or four years. Nothing happens. Nothing changes and I think nothing will change. Any changes will be cosmetic because financial institutions have a lot of clout and the financial lobby is very strong. Much stronger than the oil lobby.”

Now that's a punch that packs a wallop and tells it like it really is pointing squarely at the real bigger fish than the three small companies and two oil traders that CFTC (Commodity Futures Trading Commission) is suing right now.

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/fadel- ... lating-bus" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Samuel the Lamanite]

The Lord's perfect economic and money system has already been laid out although some details need to be filled in. I will advocate the United Order as the perfect economic system and foundation for a free governemnt for all peoples.,