Governor of IMF a.k.a Secretary Of Treasury

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by mrg

Very important point regarding bankruptcy.

The "Secretary" is the "keeper."

I think the Treasury may be more of a UN warehouse than anything else.

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Nope. The other way around. As an IMF employee (UN) he is prevented being payed by the US to avoid double salary/compensation.

Under 22 USC 286a(d), none of the US representatives on the IMF are paid by the US govt for their IMF participation. If they also hold positions in the US govt, they are paid by the US govt for those positions but not for their IMF work.
The same section goes on to say that the US executive director and the US alternate exec director of the IMF will be paid by the IMF -- but only to the level of corresponding managerial positions in the US civil service. The executive directorships in the IMF are nearly or actually a full-time job, unlike the governorship.

And, no, the US govt is not bankrupt (except, perhaps, intellectually and morally) and not in receivership..

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Under 22 USC 286a(d), none of the US representatives on the IMF are paid by the US govt for their IMF participation. If they also hold positions in the US govt, they are paid by the US govt for those positions but not for their IMF work.
The same section goes on to say that the US executive director and the US alternate exec director of the IMF will be paid by the IMF -- but only to the level of corresponding managerial positions in the US civil service. The executive directorships in the IMF are nearly or actually a full-time job, unlike the governorship.

And, no, the US govt is not bankrupt (except, perhaps, intellectually and morally) and not in receivership..

And, no, the US govt is not bankrupt (except, perhaps, intellectually and morally) and not in receivership..

I was hoping you would say something like that Shoonra.

And above that, all you said is that the Secretary of the Treasury being Governor of the IMF for the United States is not compensated by the US. Therefore the Secretary is not, as you said a US employee in his capacity as US Governor for the IMF.

It is because of this that the clerks of the US court quit changing the time to respond for a summons from 20 days to 60 days. That 60 days is for US government employees.

I think that the Readers can get it better with your input, as usual Shoonra. Now all they have to believe is all that Bankers' Holiday stuff was because the US corporation was in economic disaster and bankruptcy etc. I wonder how difficult it is to pursuade them of that, Shoonra?



Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. This gets better and better - Shoonra will explain for us exactly how HJR-192 dichotomized government (federal v national) by dichotomizing the money supply (legal tender (FRNs/private credit) v money (USNs/public money). She practically has done that already.

Shoonra; Are you a Daughter of the Eastern Star? (see image from Mason Museum attached) Is that why you are releasing the esoteric?

[Shoonra]

The Secretary of the Treasury is not automatically the US governor on the IMF. The governor has very minor IMF duties and it does not appear that the IMF makes payment to the governor from any of its member countries.

The extra time alloted to the US Govt and functionaries when answering lawsuits in court is not left up to the clerks of courts and is not a recent change. It was embodied in federal law a long time before the IMF or the Great Depression or anything else you've mentioned. It goes back at least to an Act of March 3, 1887.

I have nothing to do with Eastern, Western or any other kind of Star, nor with the Masons nor any other lodge or other club.

Unlike you I have read the legislative history of "HJR 192". You would be well advised to do the same. And, if you can find it, Money in the Law by Arthur Nussbaum.

[dawgwise]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Unlike you I have read the legislative history of "HJR 192". You would be well advised to do the same. .

Who is this "you" that you speak of? Sounds a bit rather self absorbed.

“Nowadays, all the peoples of the world are poor because they are in debt of all their money and also more. As a consequence of the old and usual habit of always giving an equivalent in order to get money, the central banks induced all the peoples to accept their money, at the issue's act, with the equivalent of a debt (which shouldn't be due), that is to say on loan. Therefore the nominal money caused the biggest fraud of all time, unnoticed because it is too evident.”
Prof. Giacinto Auriti
http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/ProfAuriti.htm

Other thoughts:
Murry Rothbard, my prof. At UNLV
http://www.mises.org/story/1829

[Shoonra]

"You" was DM who made some lame prediction of what I'd say.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

"You" was DM who made some lame prediction of what I'd say.

She just can't pronounce national debt.

[dawgwise]

"When money was made from gold, the bearer was also the owner. Since the advent of "nominal money", he has without realising it become a debtor. All "nominal money" is issued by the banks in the form of loans. Thus, all money in circulation is burdened with debt to the central banks. Therefore, if someone wants to pay off a debt of money with money, it would be the same as paying a debt with another debt. IT CANNOT BE DONE. In the long run, he is forced to pay with his own capital and with the produce of his labour."
Prof. Giacinto Auriti


"There can be no genuine laboratory experiments in human affairs, but we came as close as we ever will in 1968, and still more definitively in 1971. Here were two firm and opposing sets of predictions: the Misesians, who stated that if the dollar and gold were cut loose, the price of gold in ever-more inflated dollars would zoom upward; and the massed economic Establishment, from Friedman to Samuelson, and even including such ex*-Misesians as Fritz Machlup, maintaining that the price of gold would, if cut free, plummet from $35 to $6 an ounce.

The allegedly eternal system of Bretton Woods collapsed in 1968."
Prof. Murry Rothbard

[mrg]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

I think the Treasury may be more of a UN warehouse than anything else.

whorehouse?

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

And, no, the US govt is not bankrupt (except, perhaps, intellectually and morally) and not in receivership..

I think it safe to say that Shoonra is as bereft as the bankrupt US for telling such a lie.