Gold. GOLD!!!!! Gooooollllllllllddddddd!!!!!!!!

T

tokeprep

Well-Known Member
echelon1k1 said:
What are you smoking?
Click to expand...
Section 10. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

1. Appointment and Qualification of Members

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (hereinafter referred to as the "Board") shall be composed of seven members, to be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, after the date of enactment of the Banking Act of 1935, for terms of fourteen years except as hereinafter provided...
Click to expand...
The Board of Governors is a federal agency. Look to Kennedy C. Scott v. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas, which contrasts the Board of Governors to the individual Federal Reserve Banks, noting that the Board exercises the government's powers, not the regional banks, and that those regional banks are subject in some ways to the Board's direction and control.

See Section 11 of the Federal Reserve Act, Powers of Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, for a comprehensive outline of the powers retained by the Board.

Section 4. Federal Reserve Banks

9. Number and Classes of Directors
Such board of directors shall be selected as hereinafter specified and shall consist of nine members, holding office for three years, and divided into three classes, designated as classes A, B, and C.

10. Class A Directors

Class A shall consist of three members, without discrimination on the basis of race, creed, color, sex, or national origin, who shall be chosen by and be representative of the stockholding banks.

11. Class B Directors

Class B shall consist of three members, who shall represent the public and shall be elected without discrimination on the basis of race, creed, color, sex, or national origin, and with due but not exclusive consideration to the interests of agriculture, commerce, industry, services, labor, and consumers.

12. Class C Directors

Class C shall consist of three members who shall be designated by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. They shall be elected to represent the public, without discrimination on the basis of race, creed, color, sex, or national origin, and with due but not exclusive consideration to the interests of agriculture, commerce, industry, services, labor and consumers. When the necessary subscriptions to the capital stock have been obtained for the organization of any Federal reserve bank, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System shall appoint the class C directors and shall designate one of such directors as chairman of the board to be selected. Pending the designation of such chairman, the organization committee shall exercise the powers and duties appertaining to the office of chairman in the organization of such Federal reserve bank.
Click to expand...
This is not how private corporations choose their directors. Ownership of stock does not equate to voting rights as it does with a normal private corporation.

Section 7. Division of Earnings

Dividends and Surplus Fund of Reserve Banks

(a)


    • After all necessary expenses of a Federal reserve bank have been paid or provided for, the stockholders of the bank shall be entitled to receive an annual dividend of 6 percent on paid-in capital stock.
    • The entitlement to dividends under subparagraph (A) shall be cumulative.
  2. That portion of net earnings of each Federal reserve bank which remains after dividend claims under subparagraph (1)(A) have been fully met shall be deposited in the surplus fund of the bank.

...

Use of Earnings Transferred to the Treasury

(b) The net earnings derived by the United States from Federal reserve banks shall, in the discretion of the Secretary, be used to supplement the gold reserve held against outstanding United States notes, or shall be applied to the reduction of the outstanding bonded indebtedness of the United States under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. Should a Federal reserve bank be dissolved or go into liquidation, any surplus remaining, after the payment of all debts, dividend requirements as hereinbefore provided, and the par value of the stock, shall be paid to and become the property of the United States and shall be similarly applied.
Click to expand...
Profits, after the dividend on capital locked up in the regional bank stock, is returned to the treasury.
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
tokeprep said:
The president selects appointees from lists because he couldn't possibly make independent, informed decisions about hundreds or thousands of presidential appointments. But those lists are compiled by the president's hand-picked staff, not delivered by the banking cartel, as you seem to be implying. Of course, if the president is particularly knowledgeable about something and cares a lot about the appointment, he probably makes his own decision (I doubt this fits Obama when it comes to the Board, but he's probably very comfortable with labor, judges, etc.).

Banks don't "own" the Fed. The Board of Governors--which has the real power--is a federal agency that banks have nothing to do with. The Board is composed almost entirely of academics and lifelong public servants, not bank cronies. Of course, you mean the regional Federal Reserve banks, but those aren't meaningfully "owned" either. All national banks must own stock in a regional Federal Reserve bank, and many state banks own the stock as well. The stock in those banks doesn't carry control rights, and the banks aren't entitled to the regional bank profits, just a fixed dividend on the capital they're required to hold as Federal Reserve stock. Any bank can buy stock in one of the regional banks.

The Board sets monetary policy and the profits of the regional Federal Reserve banks are surrendered to the Treasury. You'll have to identify the nefarious conspiracy in all of this for me.
Click to expand...
Beware the wrath of the Paulbots and those that subscribe to the Rothchild Joo banker conspiracy theories
They shall be nipping at you toes soon

And be prepared to answer why the Fed keeps it's meeting secret
 
T

tokeprep

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
Beware the wrath of the Paulbots and those that subscribe to the Rothchild Joo banker conspiracy theories
They shall be nipping at you toes soon

And be prepared to answer why the Fed keeps it's meeting secret
Click to expand...
Realistically, almost all government meetings about policy are "secret," in the sense that the public cannot attend them and can probably only obtain information about them through the Freedom of Information Act, so there's nothing damning about that (how, in a FOIA request, do you ask for the minutes of a meeting you didn't know happened if you don't know what was discussed?).

Of course, we know very well what the Fed does, it just comes to us on a delayed basis. I can't fathom what's so nefarious about that.
 
echelon1k1

echelon1k1

New Member
tokeprep said:
Why didn't you make a substantive criticism? Because you can't deny reality?
Click to expand...
Are you an economist or economics student? Because it seems those within the economic sector have some serious issues in regards to reality... Posting some bullshit from the FEDs website doesn't make it so...

See JOHN L. LEWIS, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant/Appellee.

(No. 80-5905, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, NINTH CIRCUIT

680 F.2d 1239; 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 20002; March 2, 1982, Submitted; April 19, 1982, Decided)

Excerpts from the ruling:

The district court dismissed, holding that the Federal Reserve Bank is not a federal agency within the meaning of the Federal Reserve Act and that the court therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction….

“Federal agency” is defined as: the executive departments, the military departments, independent establishments of the United States, and corporations acting primarily as instrumentalities of the United States, but does not include any contractors with the United States.

There are no sharp criteria for determining whether an entity is a federal agency within the meaning of the Act (28 U.S.C. § 2671), but the critical factor is the existence of federal government control over the “detailed physical performance” and “day to day operation” of that entity…. Other factors courts have considered include whether the entity is an independent corporation…, whether the government is involved in the entity’s finances…. and whether the mission of the entity furthers the policy of the United States… Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks, and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the FTCA, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.

Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region. The stockholding commercial banks elect two thirds of each Bank’s nine member board of directors. The remaining three directors are appointed by the Federal Reserve Board. The Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks, but direct supervision and control of each Bank is exercised by its board of directors. 12 U.S.C. § 301. The directors enact by-laws regulating the manner of conducting general Bank business, 12 U.S.C. § 341, and appoint officers to implement and supervise daily Bank activities. These activities include collecting and clearing checks, making advances to private and commercial entities, holding reserves for member banks, discounting the notes of member banks, and buying and selling securities on the open market. See 12 U.S.C. §§ 341 [**5] 361….

It is evident from the legislative history of the Federal Reserve Act that Congress did not intend to give the federal government direction over the daily operation of the Reserve Banks: It is proposed that the Government shall retain sufficient power over the reserve banks to enable it to exercise a direct authority when necessary to do so…. In other words, the reserve-bank plan retains to the Government power over the exercise of the broader banking functions, while it leaves to individuals and privately owned institutions the actual direction of routine…[Note: neither the Act, nor this court explained how that is done] the Federal Reserve Banks, though heavily regulated, are locally controlled by their member banks. Unlike typical federal agencies, each bank is empowered to hire and fire employees at will. Bank employees do not participate in the Civil Service Retirement System. They are covered by worker’s compensation insurance, purchased by the Bank, rather than the Federal Employees Compensation Act. Employees traveling on Bank business are not subject to federal travel regulations and do not receive government [**7] employee discounts on lodging and services.

The Banks are listed neither as “wholly owned” government corporations under 31 U.S.C. § 846 nor as “mixed ownership” corporations under 31 U.S.C. § 856, … a factor considered in Pearl v. United States, 230 F.2d 243 (10th Cir. 1956), which held that the Civil Air Patrol is not a federal agency under the Act. … Additionally, Reserve Banks, as privately owned entities, receive no appropriated funds from Congress. …The Reserve Banks have properly been held to be federal instrumentalities for some purposes….The Reserve Banks are deemed to [**10] be federal instrumentalities for purposes of immunity from state taxation…. The Reserve Banks, which further the nation’s fiscal policy, clearly perform an important governmental function….Performance of an important governmental function, however, [**11] is but a single factor and not determinative in tort claims actions…. Brink’s Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 466 F. Supp. 116 (D.D.C.1979), held that a Federal Reserve Bank is a federal [**12] instrumentality for purposes of the Service Contract Act, 41 U.S.C. § 351. … For these reasons we hold that the Reserve Banks are not federal agencies for purposes of the Federal Tort Claims Act and we affirm the judgment of the district court.
Click to expand...
 
T

tokeprep

Well-Known Member
echelon1k1 said:
Are you an economist or economics student? Because it seems those within the economic sector have some serious issues in regards to reality... Posting some bullshit from the FEDs website doesn't make it so...

See JOHN L. LEWIS, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant/Appellee.

(No. 80-5905, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, NINTH CIRCUIT

680 F.2d 1239; 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 20002; March 2, 1982, Submitted; April 19, 1982, Decided)

Excerpts from the ruling:
Click to expand...
Posting bullshit from the Fed's web site? Almost all of what I posted was straight out of the Federal Reserve Act, as amended. It's the present law that governs the Federal Reserve System, as Congress has enacted it, not some false reality.

Evidently you didn't bother to read all of that either, since your case makes the same conclusion as the case I referred to. The Board of Governors is a federal agency; the regional banks are not federal agencies. When people refer to "the Fed," though, they aren't talking about the actions of those regional banks. They're talking about monetary policy, which is controlled by the Board of Governors. The Fed, as maker of monetary policy, is not a private corporation, it's a federal agency.

If you want to say you mean "the Fed" as all of its parts--that you weren't just referring to making monetary policy--then it's neither a federal agency nor a private corporation, or it's both a federal agency and a private corporation, since the system has public and private components.
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
tokeprep said:
Posting bullshit from the Fed's web site? Almost all of what I posted was straight out of the Federal Reserve Act, as amended. It's the present law that governs the Federal Reserve System, as Congress has enacted it, not some false reality.

Evidently you didn't bother to read all of that either, since your case makes the same conclusion as the case I referred to. The Board of Governors is a federal agency; the regional banks are not federal agencies. When people refer to "the Fed," though, they aren't talking about the actions of those regional banks. They're talking about monetary policy, which is controlled by the Board of Governors. The Fed, as maker of monetary policy, is not a private corporation, it's a federal agency.

If you want to say you mean "the Fed" as all of its parts--that you weren't just referring to making monetary policy--then it's neither a federal agency nor a private corporation, or it's both a federal agency and a private corporation, since the system has public and private components.
Click to expand...
 
echelon1k1

echelon1k1

New Member
tokeprep said:
Posting bullshit from the Fed's web site? Almost all of what I posted was straight out of the Federal Reserve Act, as amended. It's the present law that governs the Federal Reserve System, as Congress has enacted it, not some false reality.

Evidently you didn't bother to read all of that either, since your case makes the same conclusion as the case I referred to. The Board of Governors is a federal agency; the regional banks are not federal agencies. When people refer to "the Fed," though, they aren't talking about the actions of those regional banks. They're talking about monetary policy, which is controlled by the Board of Governors. The Fed, as maker of monetary policy, is not a private corporation, it's a federal agency.

If you want to say you mean "the Fed" as all of its parts--that you weren't just referring to making monetary policy--then it's neither a federal agency nor a private corporation, or it's both a federal agency and a private corporation, since the system has public and private components.
Click to expand...
The fed reserve act is a load of bullshit too enacted in secrecy against the best interests of the "people"... Only criminally trained economists think otherwise. Talking shit to congress without any records to back up it's claims does not lend credence to it's legitimacy. But please continue in defence of the status quo you seem to be their biggest supporters...
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
echelon1k1 said:
The fed reserve act is a load of bullshit too enacted in secrecy against the best interests of the "people"... Only criminally trained economists think otherwise. Talking shit to congress without any records to back up it's claims does not lend credence to it's legitimacy. But please continue in defence of the status quo you seem to be their biggest supporters...
Click to expand...
Does Australia have a central bank?

Name a successful country that doesnt have a central bank
 
echelon1k1

echelon1k1

New Member
ChesusRice said:
Does Australia have a central bank?

Name a successful country that doesnt have a central bank
Click to expand...
Central banks are in no way a measure of a countries success... When you can tell the difference between a penis and a vagina maybe just maybe, you'll be able to tell the difference between paper and gold...
 
T

tokeprep

Well-Known Member
echelon1k1 said:
The fed reserve act is a load of bullshit too enacted in secrecy against the best interests of the "people"... Only criminally trained economists think otherwise. Talking shit to congress without any records to back up it's claims does not lend credence to it's legitimacy. But please continue in defence of the status quo you seem to be their biggest supporters...
Click to expand...
"Enacted in secrecy" as much as any other legislation is. We've jumped from "The Fed is a private corporation!" to "The Fed is an evil creation of Congress!" I think the jump itself sufficiently discredits whatever thesis you were attempting to advance.

I'm not an economist and I didn't major in economics. I'm only interested in fact. If I could be shown empirical evidence that gold was better than fiat currency, I would have no choice but to embrace it. I cannot defend a position that is not true, not factual, and not based on empirical reality. Unlike many of the people here, I've changed sides many times based on convincing arguments that had meaningful backing.

I used to be ardently opposed to abortion; I used to be against gay marriage; I used to favor strict gun control; I used to be vehemently opposed to the estate tax; I used to think the minimum wage was a horrible evil. All of that is "I used to" because--foremost--my interest is being aligned with a meaningful reality, not in worthless concepts and theories, not in baseless arguments, not in conspiracy theories that are so obviously elaborate fictions.
 
T

tokeprep

Well-Known Member
echelon1k1 said:
Central banks are in no way a measure of a countries success... When you can tell the difference between a penis and a vagina maybe just maybe, you'll be able to tell the difference between paper and gold...
Click to expand...
How would you know? We cannot possibly compare having a central bank against not having a central bank, unless you're trying to draw something out of history. When we had central banks, we had the industrial revolution; when we had the Federal Reserve and other central banks throughout the world, we saw the greatest uplifting of people from poverty that has ever been seen in all of human history; we saw more people grow more wealthy than we have ever--in hundreds of thousands of years of human history--seen before.

If you want to claim that this was inevitable, you must substantiate that claim. Standing behind all of that progress is fractional reserve banking and credit, two of the most ingenious human creations of all time. Oppose them if you like, but you're fighting against a century of human reality--what happens to be the greatest human century ever, in all of human history--despite whatever bickering complaints we have about wealth disparity.
 
echelon1k1

echelon1k1

New Member
tokeprep said:
How would you know? We cannot possibly compare having a central bank against not having a central bank, unless you're trying to draw something out of history. When we had central banks, we had the industrial revolution; when we had the Federal Reserve and other central banks throughout the world, we saw the greatest uplifting of people from poverty that has ever been seen in all of human history; we saw more people grow more wealthy than we have ever--in hundreds of thousands of years of human history--seen before.

If you want to claim that this was inevitable, you must substantiate that claim. Standing behind all of that progress is fractional reserve banking and credit, two of the most ingenious human creations of all time. Oppose them if you like, but you're fighting against a century of human reality--what happens to be the greatest human century ever, in all of human history--despite whatever bickering complaints we have about wealth disparity.
Click to expand...
Afghanistan & Iraq have central banks too - I would not rate them as successful...
 
echelon1k1

echelon1k1

New Member
tokeprep said:
"Enacted in secrecy" as much as any other legislation is. We've jumped from "The Fed is a private corporation!" to "The Fed is an evil creation of Congress!" I think the jump itself sufficiently discredits whatever thesis you were attempting to advance.

I'm not an economist and I didn't major in economics. I'm only interested in fact. If I could be shown empirical evidence that gold was better than fiat currency, I would have no choice but to embrace it. I cannot defend a position that is not true, not factual, and not based on empirical reality. Unlike many of the people here, I've changed sides many times based on convincing arguments that had meaningful backing.

I used to be ardently opposed to abortion; I used to be against gay marriage; I used to favor strict gun control; I used to be vehemently opposed to the estate tax; I used to think the minimum wage was a horrible evil. All of that is "I used to" because--foremost--my interest is being aligned with a meaningful reality, not in worthless concepts and theories, not in baseless arguments, not in conspiracy theories that are so obviously elaborate fictions.
Click to expand...
You seem to think that because it's written on a piece of paper somehow they are accountable. So it's a government agency when carrying out "important governmental function" but at all other times it's a private corporation. got it.
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
tokeprep said:
How would you know? We cannot possibly compare having a central bank against not having a central bank, unless you're trying to draw something out of history. When we had central banks, we had the industrial revolution; when we had the Federal Reserve and other central banks throughout the world, we saw the greatest uplifting of people from poverty that has ever been seen in all of human history; we saw more people grow more wealthy than we have ever--in hundreds of thousands of years of human history--seen before.

If you want to claim that this was inevitable, you must substantiate that claim. Standing behind all of that progress is fractional reserve banking and credit, two of the most ingenious human creations of all time. Oppose them if you like, but you're fighting against a century of human reality--what happens to be the greatest human century ever, in all of human history--despite whatever bickering complaints we have about wealth disparity.
Click to expand...
Lol, you're hilarious.

Gadaffis Libya had a solid currency backed by oil/gold and his people had social services you can't imagine all paid for with nationalised oil profits, eg. Electricity was completely free, no homelessness, etc.

He was trying to change the currency oil was traded in from the US dollar to the African Gold Dinar and guess what happened? The US had him overthrown and will have exchanged him for a Muslim Brotherhood style Govt instead.

Its so short term and retarded but now they're a central bank, a worthless fiat currency and her people are crazy poor, so good job "saving them".
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
Harrekin said:
Lol, you're hilarious.

Gadaffis Libya had a solid currency backed by oil/gold and his people had social services you can't imagine all paid for with nationalised oil profits, eg. Electricity was completely free, no homelessness, etc.

".
Click to expand...
There are no electricity bills in Libya; electricity is free for all its citizens.
Categorically untrue. Despite poor electricity infrastructure and poor coverage of electricity lines, even in the Capital, Libyan home owners pay monthly/quarterly (area dependant) electricity bills based on meter readings. Electricity is cut off in instances of unpaid bills. Reconnection upon payment is not instant. The electric infrastructure is weak and some areas of Libya do not have electricity available at all.
There is no interest on loans, banks in Libya are state-owned and loans given to all its citizens at 0% interest by law.
Categorically untrue. Banks all over Libya have been giving out loans for years and years. There is a percentage rate charge on all loans, which is comparable to an interest rate, but in the spirit of ‘islamic ethics’ it is not called interest, it is called an ‘Administrative Expense’ – Masareef Edareeya.
A House is considered a human right in Libya ¬ Gaddafi vowed that his parents would not get a house until everyone in Libya had a home. Gaddafi¹s father has died while he, his wife and his mother are still living in a tent.
Gaddafi abused this human right as much as he did other basic rights. It is well known in Libya that political opponents and successful business men/women had their homes confiscated and handed over to regime members, usually rewards for Free Officers – Dubat A7rar. Many farms and homes and businesses were confiscated during three infamous phases of Libyas dictatorial history:

  • 1969 – The dreaded Green Revolution. Free Officers were rewarded land, homes, and farms that sometimes belonged to other people and the original owners were not compensated or asked if this was ok.
  • Late 70’s – The introduction of the law Albayt le Sakinehee – The Home Belongs to its Dwellers. As this law was passed overnight, thousands of homeowners instantly lost their homes, as tenants (those renting the homes) claimed ownership on account of being the ‘dwellers’. The law applied to homes, farms, shops, etc.
  • 90’s – The introduction of Purification Committees (Lejnat al Tatheer). This committee ran by the widely know slogan, ‘Min ayna laka hada?’ – “From where did you obtain this?”, a form of ultra-socialism where people’s possessions, including homes and businesses, were confiscated if seen to be ‘surplus to requirement’ or contributing to a ‘monopoly’.
Regarding Gaddafis ‘vow’: While Gaddafi waited for ‘everyone in Libya’ to be housed, he himself lived in a sprawling 6km square compound in the centre of the capital which was home to state of the art security and an underground network of rooms and ultramodern bunkers. He also had a vast and well known farm on Airport Road in Tripoli. This, just in the capital.
All newlyweds in Libya receive $60,000 Dinar (US$ 50,000 ) by the government to buy their first apartment so to help start up the family.
This is a well known rumour and a common joke in Libya. Whilst it may have been passed as official legislation, I know of not a single family who has been given this grant. The backbreaking bureaucracy associated with such grants and loans make them more or less impossible to obtain.
Education and medical treatments are free in Libya. Before Gaddafi only 25% of Libyans are literate. Today the figure is 83%.
Education and Health Care – Free does not mean adequate. It is well known that Libya’s standard of health care is nothing short of appalling. It is widely known that the majority of Libyans seeking medical care leave for neighbouring countries for treatment. Our Education system is no better. It is outdated, teachers are underpaid and under-trained and libraries are largely non-existent. The syllabus was constantly being revised and reviewed under direct instruction from the former regime e.g. banning English, changing Quranic verses, etc.
It is commonly said that Libyans would be happy to forfeit their ‘free health care’ and pay for a National Health Service if it was up to the required standard.
Should Libyans want to take up farming career, they would receive farming land, a farming house, equipments, seeds and Livestock to kick- start their farms all for free.
This has never happened, in addition to this many farms and homes have been confiscated by the government to build railroads, The Great Man Made River and civil roads.
The owners of the land were only compensated if there was a covered structure on the land as the Gaddafi regime legally owned any land and the people were only allowed to build on it. When there was compensation offered it was nowhere near the actual value of the property and many waited years to receive anything if at all. This system was also rife with corruption many residents told they had to pay a bribe to receive what little they were given.
If Libyans cannot find the education or medical facilities they need in Libya, the government funds them to go abroad for it not only free but they get $2, 300/month accommodation and car allowance.
Categorically untrue. If this was the case, the former regime would have been in receipt of 6 million application forms – one for every man, women and child who ‘cannot find education or medical facilities they need’. This grant does not exist for the mainstream public. There is anectdotal evidence of some medical grants being given but again, the system was corrupt and opaque.
In Libyan, if a Libyan buys a car, the government pays 50% of the price. ‎The price of petrol in Libya is $0.14 per liter.
There is no truth to the former Gaddafi regime paying 50% of the value of a new car.
Whilst the price of fuel is indeed cheap, the quality of roads, the accuracy and availability of road signs, the presence of road traffic police, and all other transport infrastructure is of abysmal standard.
The absence of an integrated and functional public transport system means that people are reliant on their cars for all movement and might end up paying more on fuel than our neighbours around the Mediterranean basin.
Libya has no external debt and its reserves amount to $150 billion now frozen globally.
Whilst our sovereign wealth is undeniable, none of it was spent on the people of Libya nor the infrastructure of the country. Basic amenities, services, and state infrastructure are either absent or of appalling standard.
The availability of money is not tantamount to wealth or prosperity. The Arabs have a saying about Libya – “A rich nation of poor inhabitants.”
If a Libyan is unable to get employment after graduation the state would pay the average salary of the profession as if he or she is employed until employment is found.
Categorically untrue. Even basic wages are sometimes unpaid for months, for those lucky enough to be employed. Welfare for the unemployed is non-existent.
A portion of Libyan oil sale is credited directly to the bank accounts of all Libyan citizens.
No basis to this claim as no such case can be found.
A mother who gave birth to a child receive US $5 ,000
Categorically untrue. There is a Child Benefit welfare payment in Libya – it is roughly 15-20 Libyan Dinars a month per child. No Libyan citizen was given foreign currency as compensation.
40 loaves of bread in Libya costs $ 0.15
Bread was subsidized by the state. Whilst the price varies (marginally) from shop to shop, bread usually costs ¼ dinars for 10 baguettes (small) or roughly 500grams per dinar.
25% of Libyans have a university degree
The absence of a comprehensive selection process and a corrupt entry protocol means that universities in Libya are grossly over populated and over subscribed, despite limited facilities. This results in an over inflated number of graduates, but not necessarily an adequate level of employability. There are thousands of students studying foundation year medicine in Tripoli alone.
http://feb17.info/news/myths-of-the-gaddafi-regime-explained/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top