0 votes

Constitutional Money System vs. Gold Standard

UPDATE: This article was written before I had known about Ron Paul's Open Competition of Currencies. I am in full agreement with this Act which will allow the market to decide. I think Greenbacks, Gold and Silver should all compete on the open market. The main point is to break the Money Power monopoly.

Let us kill this thread and start talking about what we agree on and how we can achieve an Open Competition of Currencies. I opened a new post, Can We All Agree on Open Competition of Currencies for constructive debate.


I used to be convinced that a Gold Standard was necessary until I learned that the Rothschild's control GOLD, from the mines to the mints. They can ruin a government on the Gold Standard simply by physically moving GOLD from one country to another. They did this in 1857 and caused the Panic of 1857 which subsequently led to the Civil War. This also makes me wonder why Ron Paul can support the Gold Standard. He is smart enough to know the Rothschild's control Gold and we would be left at their mercy once again. I would like to know his and everyone on DP opinion on a Gold Standard vs a Constitutional Money System.

In 1862 Lincoln tried to reclaim our nation at the end of the Civil War by printing Constitutional Money to pay the war debt. This money was interest and debt free. It ended up saving the US government an estimated 400 billion dollars. The International Bankers wanted to charge 24% interest. Lincoln saw and understood that this Monopoly on Money was a far greater threat to our sovereignty than the war was.

“I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at the rear is my greatest foe.” Lincoln

Money Power’s fear was that the United States would establish an honest money system and be forever free from the clutches of the International Bankers. The following is taken from the London Times in 1865:

“If that mischievous financial policy, which had its origin in the North American Republic during the late war in that country, should become indurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off its debts and be without a debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of the civilized governments of the world. The brains and the wealth of all countries will go to North America. That government must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe.”

Note: Monarchy should be replaced by Money Power as this was a direst appeal for action from monarchs who were in fact debtors to the International bankers.

From what I understand we need to revert to a Constitutional Money System that can be expanded and contracted by open scientific calculations and not controlled by a secret elite for their own gain. Also it should not be limited and constrained by a resource that is also controlled by the same secret elite.

If anyone is interested in sources or more detailed information about a Constitutional Money System I suggest you read Money Creators by Gertrude Coogan.


Possible contrasts:

1. Is it Unconstitutional for the Federal Government to coin Money that is not gold or silver?
Article 1,
Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power...

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;


The Constitution does not state that the MONEY must be of Gold or Silver it simply says that congress has the authority to coin Money. Unless Money is defined as Gold and Silver.

2.How is this different then what we have today?

The control of US money today is in the hands of a secret elite who charge interest. Constitutional money is interest free and controlled by an elected body, Congress, and therefor is in the public domain.

This is my first post and a topic I have been thinking about and researching for a long time. I am very interested in an intelligent discourse on this subject, especially due to today's circumstances. I believe the entire Civil War could have been averted had Lincoln and the American people come to the realization that the enemy was Money Power and the answer was Constitutional Money before 1857. There are a lot of lessons to learn from this era that we can apply to today. And the American people should discuss this before we get to the point where brother raises arms against his brother once again.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Lincoln was not your friend

What led to the Civil War was not the '57 panic; it was a long-range plan since 1841 when Tyler kicked the Whigs and the money power behind them in the balls.

War is a very good way to establish a national debt and enact legislations which in peace-time would not be possible.

The plan was to establish a nation-wide banking system; use this banking system as the (sole) fiscal agent of the Federal government; use the notes of this banking system as the (sole) currency of the nation; use permanent federal debt as the basis of this currency. (thanks to Lincoln and his war, all this was accomplished)

Slavery was a good excuse for agitation. Lincoln was looking to any excuse to make war.

That "quote" (If that mischievous financial policy) is a fabrication.

The legal-tender clause did not originate with Lincoln; it originated with the bankers, they demanded it not the people; the people would have been just fine with non-legal-tender Treasury notes


Great post.


by BY JOHN TAYLOR , 1820

Paragraph 8

...The power to "coin money and regulate foreign coin" is limited by the terms "coin and foreign" to the precious metals, because it could not extend to native paper currency, without including foreign; and a standard of weights, respecting money, refers to money capable of being weighed. The states are prohibited "from coining money, emitting bills of credit, or making any thing but gold and silver a tender in payment of debts." The distinction between specie and paper currency is in this clause established. A power, prohibited to the states and not delegated to congress, can be exercised by neither. A power, the direct exercise of which is prohibited, ought not to be indirectly exercised. A power, prohibited or not delegated to the principal, cannot be delegated by that principal to another. Bills of credit are distinguished from other objects of tender laws, which had been numerous among the states, and are prohibited absolutely, whether the quality of being made a tender for debts was annexed to them or not. Otherwise, it would have been unnecessary to mention them at all. The powers of "coining money, emitting bills of credit, and making any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment for debts," being prohibited to the states; and the first power only being delegated to congress; it follows that the other two are prohibited and not delegated. And it seems to me, that it may be as speciously contended, according to the late fashion of construction, that the states may make any thing, but gold and silver, a tender; as that either congress or the states can delegate to individuals or corporations a power to emit bills of credit; or impair contracts by suspensions of payments in" favour of their own creatures, or of unlucky speculators. Either would be a usurpation of a sovereign power over property, not delegated to one department, and expressly prohibited to the other. It may be also remarked, that the power given to congress "to provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States" by omitting bills of credit, recognizes their exclusion, and does not include bills of credit emitted by corporations.

13 No servant can serve two masters; for either he shall hate the one, and love the other, or else he shall lean to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and riches. - Luke 16

Republicae's picture

Wonderful post JeffD, I had

Wonderful post JeffD, I had forgotten about John Taylor of Caroline. Have you read his book entitled Tyranny Unmasked?


"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

I have started it,and it's

I have started it,and it's interesting that the "hamiltonians" wanted to emulate the british empire.Which is essentially what we have today.In the minds of government we are all children to be regulated,taxed,tagged...fined,imprisoned for not obeying.

There's very few honorable people today that get elected,as has been for the past 100 years or more,that take their oath seriously and guides them in "lawmaking".Not only on the federal level but also state and local.It's almost as if the people elect kings to lord over them on every aspect of life,dismissing liberty for green paper/safety.

There was a article posted at http://mises.org/daily/4149 - A Constitutional Dollar,the other day that seems logical.As stated their
"The solution to all this is straightforward. Choose one metal as a standard and allow the price of the other metal to fluctuate freely or float in the market."
Of course with this there also has to be a repeal on many laws,and the country going back to making goods to export for silver/gold.
Your thoughts?

13 No servant can serve two masters; for either he shall hate the one, and love the other, or else he shall lean to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and riches. - Luke 16

Republicae's picture

Yes, I read Michael Rozeff's

Yes, I read Michael Rozeff's article and I tend to agree with him. Commenting on your last statement could entail a massive essay, but I will keep it short. There appear to be few who tout fiat currencies of any type who can adequately explain away the devastating effects the currency depreciation has on the economy. One such effect is the fact that domestic manufacturing tends to suffer, labor wages decrease due to many factors that are associated, but not isolated to the depreciation of the currency and the balance of trade eventually becomes skewed. Since the rate of interest must be manipulated under a fiat regime, there is a misallocation of business resources and decision making process on the part of business people is distorted, leaving the ability to adequately calculate the real status of the economy up in the air, dependent upon instead, the monetary policies of the Federal Reserve and the political intentions of that [government] entity.

Additionally, there is a general disturbance in commodity pricing and actually in business prices also due to the massive distortions brought about by the various defectiveness of fiat currency to gradually lose its utility as a adequate medium of exchange.

Not only is there no promise to pay a certain amount of money with this current fiat regime, but there is no definite stable value upon which one can rely upon to make future decisions. Essentially, the fiat regime is there to benefit government, not business and definitely not the people. It is only implemented to facilitate fiscal needs of government expansion, but not the actual monetary needs of the economy itself, this is evidenced by the fact that the supply of the fiat currency far exceeds the balance of economic requirements, otherwise there would be no inflationary depreciation.


"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

Andrew Jackson, like the Founding Fathers, was an ardent......

student of history. He very well knew, like they, that throughout history, every empire would/will eventually collapse after implementing and thus issuing a fiat currency. Andrew Jackson's well known quote was no doubt speaking of the Rothschild Dynasty when referring to "a den of vipers". Historically speaking, these very wealthy banking families (most notably the Rothschilds) have been driven through not only their bloodlines and arrogance, but their sheer will in believing that they are not only deserving of but entitled to owning and controlling everyone and everything. The overall psychological aspects of understanding their belief systems is not only overwhelming but "unbelievable" in itself by its very nature. How could a few individual families not be more than content with vast financial wealth and power? Why must it be global domination of every man, woman and child? Interesting tidbit--- as I'm writing this Fox News is interviewing Lady Lyn De Rothschild. To be honest, I was not aware of any Rothschilds residing here in the states. I believe she may be a Rothschild through marriage. I do not detect any accent whatsoever. Andrew Jackson, who became President in 1828, understood the history and problems associated with central banking and was determined to not have a repeat of the problems directly linked to the First and then Second National Banks of the United States. HE was successful in "routing" out the Problem (Rothschilds) for 30 plus years or at least the beginning of the Civil War. The Rothschilds were not able to completely control the American economy again until 1913, the advent of The Fed. The beginning of the end of another Great Empire.

den of vipers

If it is so well know, would you please tell when and to whom did Mr. Jackson that

Constitutional Considerations

It is interesting that people suddenly cling to the constitution if they think it helps make their point and then ignore the parts they don't like.

Fact 1 - Article 1, Section 8 [Congress] To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

Our framers wanted government, NOT BANKS, issuing our money. This is a primary issue and the reason our economy is failing. If choose to ignore this important part of the constitution, please don't then pretend to be a constitutionalists.

Now as far as "paper money" that is debatable.

Here is one argument:

Jan. 6, 1862, to Hon. E.G. Spaulding, M.C.,

DEAR SIR-Since you did me the honor of a call this afternoon, and propounded to me a question arising out of the pending bill “ To authorize the issue of treasury notes payable on demand,” I have given to the subject such attention as the very brief interval afforded, and proceed at once to answer.

In the first place, permit me to say, that my views of the place I hold forbid me to give your question a formal and official answer, but in proof of the high respect which I entertain for you and your honorable Committee, I, as a private man, and a professed constitutional legist, in all frankness will give you my opinion upon the point proposed, and this, with all brevity and without argument, for the time does not allow elaborate consideration.

The bill, after providing for the issue of treasury notes, contains i.e. this clause, “ and which treasury notes shall be a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States,” and you desire my opinion whether this clause is, or is not, constitutional.

Certainly the Constitution contains no direct verbal prohibition, and I think it contains no inferential or argumentative prohibition that can be fairly drawn from its expressed terms. The first article of the Constitution, section eight, grants to Congress specifically a great mass of powers. Section nine contains divers limitations upon Congress, upon the United States, and upon individuals ; and section ten contains restrictions upon the several States. This last section is the only one that treats on tender. “ No State shall make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts.” This applies to a State only, and not to the nation ; and thus it has always been understood with regard to the next preceding clause in the same section—no State shall “ emit bills of credit.” The prohibition to emit bills of credit is quite as strong as the prohibition to make anything but gold and silver coin a legal tender ; yet nobody doubts—Congress does not doubt its power to issue bills of credit. Treasury notes are bills of credit, and I think the one is just as much prohibited as the other—neither is forbidden to Congress.

The time is too short for argument, and so I remain, with all respect, EDWARD BATES

END the FED before it ENDS US

Bills of Credit


The process would occur as follows. The colony would authorize the printing of a specified quantity of notes which it would then use to pay creditors. The creditors would, in turn, use the notes to make other purchases and so put them into circulation. With each currency emission the colony would also authorize a tax equaling the amount of the emission. In practice individuals would pay the tax using the notes, and in this way the emission would be taken out of circulation. This system has been called "currency finance" as the currency was printed to pay government debts based on anticipated or future tax income.

Free includes debt-free!

Republicae's picture

One thing is certain

One thing is certain DrKrbyLuv, you are definitely not a Constitutionalist. Paper Fiat Money is not debatable when you actually take the time to read, as I have stated several times, The Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787. In the Notes provided by both Madison and Elliot you will find the clearest prohibition, not only on the federal government but the State governments as well, of the issuance of paper fiat money. Nothing could possibly be clearer when you read those documents, when you see just how they arrived at the wording used and how consensus was reached to prohibit the government, both federal and State, from the issuance of fiat paper money.

Additionally, if what you say is true that the framers wanted the government, not banks, to issue money then why did they not see a problem with not only foreign coinage used in this country, but also the issuance of private money and state money. These various types of money were used until 1858. While it is true that the Constitution gave the power to coin money, there is a vast difference between the authorization of coinage and the power to control and centrally plan monetary and economic policies.

Anytime power of any kind is given power is used, thus the power to issue fiat money will always, without exception be abused by government. It is utterly complete and absolute folly to believe or place any more faith in politicians with the power over money than it is to place faith in bankers with power. The absurdity of corruption always finds its way into the minds of men when power, especially unrestrained power beyond the limitations found within the Constitution, is given. The entire concept of implied powers give license to politicians to operate under the guise of Constitutional formalities while pursuing policies that are anything but Constitutional.

As long as the reigns of power over the money supply [in particular fiat paper money] rests within the hands of the politicians through their agents in the Federal Reserve, then you will always have the tendency for its use and abuse. Additionally, as long as the monetary policy of this country remains politicized you will continue to have the pursuit of very short-term agendas, which have very definite political objectives. Any type of fiat currency will, upon the power being extended to government, be abused, deficit spending will always result and the People will suffer the most under such monetary regimes. It is only when the power to issue fiat money is removed from government that we can find a respite from the inflationary booms, the deflationary busts, the recessions, depressions, the misdirection and allocation of labor and capital. Fiat paper systems always result in distortions of economic exchange, hidden inflationary taxation drains the People's wealth and the ability to gain wealth under a fiat debauchery power is taken, by legal force, from the People and placed completely in the hands of a non-responsive government.

The argument you present by E. G. Spaulding is a bit surprising since you claim such animosity toward bankers. Spaulding was a banker before he became a politician and he was a banker after his political career. Representative Justin S. Morrill of Vermont, on hearing Spaulding’s plan of legal tender enforcement of paper money stated: It will infinitely damage the national credit and is a breach of the public faith leading to rampant inflation. Turned out that Morrill was correct. By the end of the war, consumer prices had risen to around 175%.

It was often said, even during the Lincoln Administration, that: “All history shows that paper money with a forced circulation
is not a temporary resource. It cannot be taken up and laid down as we choose. It is a mischief easily done but most difficult to cure.” When the first fiat Greenback notes were issued, naturally the price of gold began to rise and reflect the depreciation of the fiat paper money, additionally, more and more gold was being exported as confidence in the Greenback began to wane. Of course DrKrbyLuv will never mention the similarities between the current systems he claims to be against and the system that the Lincoln Administration employed with the Greenback regime, of course he can’t for if he did then his premise is exposed for exactly what it is. Spaulding, whom DrKrbyluv quotes, claimed authorship of the Legal Tender Act, an Act that provided for the payment, in gold, of interest on the bonds issued by the government to prop up the Greenback Dollar. By 1862, the Government of Lincoln was forced to buy gold in order to pay interest on its bonds. Amazing isn’t it that DrKrbyLuv places so much faith in a system that tends to always be saturated with corruption. The increase of prices, brought about by the expansion of the Greenbacks, also increased the expenditures of the government and the sum total of the debt increased to such an amount that the actual amounts are difficult to estimate since there are certain correlating distortions due to the inflation of the paper Greenback.

By 1863, the government of Lincoln, with the acquiescence of the Radical Republican controlled Congress passed a Loan Act, which allowed the Secretary of the Treasury to borrow nearly $1 Billion Dollars with an interest payment of nearly half that much. Far from being “interest-free” money, the Greenback system was a system of indirect interest accumulation, in a very similar manner as the Federal Reserve Notes are today. In an attempt to stop the depreciation of the Greenback against gold, Congress in 1864 passed a bill that forbade trading of what was called “time rate” contracts for gold. It had the opposite effect and the premium of gold against the Greenback rose. Congress attempted to effectively stop all speculation by forbidding banks to loan on all bills of foreign exchange, at the time this was one of the most legitimate functions of banking, soon Congress repealed its law as the effects of its actions became very evident! On top of the inflationary depreciation of the Greenbacks, the Lincoln Administration imposed tariffs on over 1500 articles as it hoped to enforce a iron-clad protectionist system, by 1865 duties were at 54%, a rate that was extremely hostile to revenue raising. Internal taxation also increased, the People suffered under the weight of both tariff and internal taxation.

We are admonished by DrKrbyluv that the Greenback system should be emulated today, but the truth of the matter is that the Greenback system is being emulated and it is called the Federal Reserve System, a government partnership with banking that began during the Lincoln Administration. Based on all of DrKrbyLuv’s posts over the last year or so, I think we can safely conclude that his admonishments should most definitely be ignored.


"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

yes but YOU leave out that by

yes but YOU leave out that by 1879 the greenback was worth its printed value of gold and was thus could be redeemed for gold at face value...


Where does read about the Greenbacks history you site?
Is there a concise source?

Republicae's picture

Well, there are several

Well, there are several however, in most cases the subject of the Lincoln Greenback is only a small portion of the overall history of currency discussed. Below I have listed a few books I've enjoyed over the years that cover a range of subjects not only regarding Greenbacks, but the history of money and its manipulation by governments as well as banks.

A Short History of Paper Money and Banking by William Gouge

History of Money and Banking in the United States by Murray Rothbard

The History of Crisis Under the National Banking System by O.M.W. Sprague

A Treatise on Currency and Banking by Condy Raguet

Free Banking: Theory, History and a Laissez-Faire Model by L. Sechrest

The Mystery of Banking by Murray Rothbard

The Misery of Central Banking by Antony Mueller

The Origins of Money by Carl Menger

Money and the Mechanism of Exchange by W. Stanley Jevons

Our Money and the State by Hartley Withers

Gold is Money by Hans F Sennholz

America’s Money Machine: The Story of the Federal Reserve by Elgin Groseclose

The Ethics of Money Production by Jorg Guido Hulsmann

Pillars of Prosperity by Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty

Monetary Regimes and Inflation by Peter Bernholz

Age of Inflation by Hans Sennholz

Fiat Money Inflation in France by Andrew D. White

Money, Bank Credit and Economic Cycles by Jesus Huerta de Soto

The Theory of Money and Credit by Ludwig von Mises

The Manipulation of Money and Credit by Ludwig von Mises

Capitalism: A Treastise on Economics by George Reisman

Paper Money, Taxes and War by H. A. S. Task


"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

The Babylonian Woe

The Babylonian Woe by DAVID ASTLE

"History over these last three thousand years particularly, has largely been the interweaving of both a witting, and an unwitting distortion of the truth, with all the inevitable consequences which have been expected6 and now are but a little way ahead. Kings largely became the mouthpiece and sword arm of those semi-secret societies that controlled the material of money as its outward and visible symbols came to be restricted to gold, silver, and copper...

The fiat of the god in heaven which had been the decisive force behind that which brought about an equitable exchange, was replaced by the will of those classes controlling the undertones of civilization, leaders of the world of slave drivers, caravaneers, outcasts, and criminals generally, such as was to be discerned on the edges of the ancient city civilizations, and followed the trade routes between them...

The instrument of this will was precious metal, whose supply was controlled by the leaders of these classes through their control of the slave trade, since mining was rarely profitable in the case of the precious metals, except with slave labour, even after the development of hardened iron tools and efficient methods of smelting.

The power of these men, indifferent and alien to most cities as they were, relative to that power it was replacing, which was the will of the benevolent god of the city, had been made absolute by sowing in the minds of men over the thousands of years, the idea of such metals having a specially high value relative to other goods and services being offered for exchange; indeed that they were veritable store house of value.

The law of the ruler previously exercised towards the well being of the people in that they might live a good and honourable life accordingly became corrupted. It became merely a symbol raised before their gaze, in order that they might not look down and see the evil gnawing away at the roots of the Tree of Life itself, destroying all peace and goodness.

Nor could those semi-secret groups of persons be seen who so often were the sources of such evil. In their contemptuous indifference to the men of the state who found meaningfulness and tranquility through life lived in natural order under the law of the King, they constituted hidden force deeply inimical to the best interests of mankind."

END the FED before it ENDS US

He's got you on a technicality

If only the framers had stopped with the 'no state shall make anything but gold and silver' part. By adding the federal power to coin money and egulate the value thereof, they left it open to interpretation. Quite possibly the framers had to let the Hamiltonians get their foot in the door in order to strike a deal. I guess we just GATA relearn why those framers who hated fiat, hated fiat.

Republicae's picture

The fact is that you can

The fact is that you can imply anything you want to in the Constitution, that is obvious from the type of bastardized government we currently are subjected to in this country. The 2nd Amendment is a perfect example of the ability to use an implied interpretation rather than the intent of the Framers, so too is this interpretation and yet, if the Constitution were an isolated document without the Debates, without the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers then perhaps such an interpretation could be made without regard to the intent however, that is not the case.

Such interpretations therefore, are decisions to ignore ancillary documentation and simply make the Constitution fit a certain agenda.


"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

Also an excellent source regarding the evils of paper "money":

The remarks on the House and Senate floor and congressional record(s) regarding the necessity for the passage of the 1985 Gold Bullion Act. I spoke with John Dennis briefly at the End the Fed rally this weekend and he stated that he and Ron don't want to reintitute a gold standard but want to allow competing currencies and let the free market do it's thing. The United States Bank Notes were an excellent example of how to undercut the monopoly held by the Fed.

Thank you for your post Republicae!

You can't fix stupid,

You can't fix stupid, Republicae:

1.These morons ignore the MASSIVE inflation suffered by the greenback.

2.These morons ignore the statistical reality that the more control of the money supply by the government the more inflation you get.

3.These morons keep harping on the garbage-in-garbage-out mathematical "proof" that debt must expand forever

4.These morons ignore the correlation between money growth and debt growth.

5.These morons refuse to understand that currency devaluation and debt default are the obvious market mechanisms for making sure that debt does NOT expand forever.

6.These morons continue to parrot the medieval word "usury" and totally ignore Austrian capital theory in favor of the Keynesian pipe dream of zero-interest rates.


Ventura 2012

Can you fix

arrogance or unkindness?

Calling people morons and the disrespectful tones you and others use is possibly as destructive to the spirit of a constitutional Republic as the Fed. They both eat out the heart of public discussions of well intentioned people.



Ventura 2012

I see arrogance in these

I see arrogance in these sheep continually arguing points in this zombie thread that have been smashed time and time again. I see unkindness towards posters on this forum in propping up this rotten thread for months on end.

Ventura 2012

These same people you call

These same people you call sheep and morons most likely believe you are a fool. Blindly following gold as the God that will set you free despite all the history going back to Babylonian times where gold and silver were used by Money Power to control nations.

Fiat is not the problem, the monopoly on creating and controlling money is. Open Competition of Currencies is the solution.



Honestly, from this last post, I am not even sure what your point is. It sounds like Ron Paul's position, the same as mine.

Ventura 2012

You are correct I agree with

You are correct I agree with you and Ron Paul concerning Open Competition of Currencies. But people who question the infallibility of Gold are not crazy, sheep, or morons. They are people who have read history and have honest questions and genuine distrust to any money that is monopolized.

They aren't crazy, but they

They aren't crazy, but they are arguing against a straw man. No one here is begging for legal tender status to be given to gold(although it is constitutional). We all want competing currencies.

Ventura 2012

Great then lets kill this

Great then lets kill this thread and start talking about what we agree on and how we can achieve an Open Competition of Currencies. I opened a new post, Can We All Agree on Open Competition of Currencies for constructive debate.

Republicae's picture

It wasn't gold and silver

It wasn't gold and silver that were used to control nations...it was WAR POWER!
Power if given into the hands of any government will be used by that government; the Framers were well aware of that axiom. Fiat money is the problem, don't believe it then just look at the period between 1900 and 1971 to present, tell me what you see during the key points in that period: 1913, 1934 and 1971. From 1971, when a total fiat currency was imposed, what do you see? Fiat Money is always based upon monopoly grant and control, without it and the enforcement that accompanies fiat money there would be no way to enforce its use upon a country.

Now, tell me again that fiat is not the problem.


"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

It is the system, not the currency

Republicae wrote:

"It wasn't gold and silver that were used to control nations...it was WAR POWER!"

Nonsense. The people who control and issue the money have been responsible for almost every war in the 20th century. And that has not been the state.

States are clients to private banks who really run the show. WW1 and WW2 was orchestrated by the international banking cartel headquartered in the sovereign city of London. They also launched the Bolshevik revolution.

States gave up their sovereignty when they gave up their power to issue and control their own money.

END the FED before it ENDS US

Republicae's picture

DrKrbyLuv, your myopia serves

DrKrbyLuv, your myopia serves you well and it’s of no surprise when considering how you have allowed yourself such a narrow scope of sources to serve as the foundation of your knowledge. One need look no further than the sources you cite to see exactly where the sum of your views emanate.

Regardless, I will continue with my rebuttal of your attenuated views by stating the obvious, that the powers of government have been, and are, intertwined with the powers of finance for centuries with few breaks in the cozy relationship. Factually, you will find that there is always a political foundation for the operations of the financial powers in the world, whether it is purely ideological or practical from the stance of furthering the increase of the power of both the government and financial sides of the same corrupt coin.

Governments and their financial backers have always used the joint resources to achieve a parity of power, each beneficial to the other, but in almost every case what has been beneficial to both government and finance has been detrimental to the people under their power. Of course, borrowing has always been the preferred method of raising money instead of taxation since taxation tends to ultimately endanger the government from potential social upheaval of their subjects. This was always the case, even under a sound monetary system, for it was more prudent for a government to seek funds from the financial sectors for support than from taxing the people enough to pursue the goals of the State. Fiat Money proved to be the most efficient method of avoiding such potentially dangerous taxation, replacing direct taxation with the hidden taxation of inflationary depreciation of the currency.

Take for instance, the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, what would be the effective tax rate on the people of this country if there were no borrowing or fiat monetary creation taking place by the government? It is obvious that the rate of taxation would be to such a high extent that it would be absolutely impossible for this government to wage war. Thus the war power of governments, the political ideology behind such militarism, has and is always benefited by the powers of finance and vice-versa, since the powers of finance reap huge awards not only from direct lending, but also from the various contractual arrangements that arise from the partnership between government and the multiple sectors of the financial world. Both sides derive their existence from each other and from the relationship they have created symbiotically.

This relationship between the powers of governments and the powers of finance have been nurtured in complete complicity and a total coalition of interests; to ignore or simplify such a history of coalition, as you seem to do, side-steps the most obvious nature of the complicity of that relationship. Your stance on the subject evidences a lack of knowledge about the systematic coercion that originates from the relationship between the powers of government and finance.

It is also absolutely necessary not to lump everything into one nicely wrapped package when deciphering this long-standing coalition. The idea of a central bank, in particular, is not purely one that is a creation of banking, but of a combination of banking and political interests. In fact, central banking is not a product of the natural development of a banking system, at least not in the sense of an independent banking business. It is an imposed system that originates outside the market and it is, without any doubt, the result of government powers and the ability of government to act upon such power. The ability to legislation and enforce legislation that provides monopoly privileges to central banking authorities and subsequently to the corporate interests that benefit from such systems is the primary impetus of the relationship between the two.

Factually, based upon the history of the complicity between banking and governments, there can be no other conclusion except that both benefit from the relationship/partnership they formed throughout the centuries.

I can see of no other means by which the legal principles of private property ownership and the rights that accompany such rights can be restored except through the restoration of a sound, 100% reserve monetary system. Such a restoration would also destroy the foundation of power in the coalition between government and central banking. It is evident that every valid rule of conduct has been violated through this coalition of corruption, such as the traditional principle of custody, it is an obligation that is completely ignored in the fiat/fractional reserve system that has evolved in this coalition between government and central banking.

This coalition, in the course of history, violated every possible principle and rule of valid law by using the money of their depositors/citizens for their own benefit. As stated, this coalition is not one-sided as you indicate in your threads and comments, on the contrary, it is a deeply embedded system of coercive powers intent upon the redistribution of the productive wealth of the people into the hands of government and its agent, the central banking system. Governments and central bankers realized that the activities of finance and politics would be extremely lucrative for them, thus the grant of privileged monopoly to the central bank by government provided the benefits that both sides of the corrupt ideology desired. One is not isolated from the other, especially now, they are indeed one power, not two.

Without understanding the historical relationship between the ideal of sound money one cannot possibly understand [as evidenced by the comments you make] the full import that it has been and is one of the primary instruments for the protection of individual liberties against the potential despotic complicity that arise out of the coalition between governments and finance. There are essentially two aspects to the principles behind the effective nature of sound money. It is the most affirmative medium of exchange within the operations of the market [free market, that is], it evolved as a voluntary action between those within markets and, unlike any fiat money, sound money required no coercion or legal enforcement to accomplish a beneficial means of economic transaction. Sound money also have the peculiar nature of being obstructive, to a very large degree, of the ability of governments and yes, even banks, to make drastic interventions into the market. Not saying that it is impossible, but in order for governments and banks to meddle in the sound money system they must do so over a rather long period of time since a sound monetary system tends to be very sensitive to such interventions.

When comparing the sound monetary system with fiat, it becomes very obvious that the sound monetary system renders the ability of government to determine the purchase value of the currency impotent and almost completely independent of government policies and party politics. Perhaps one of the most vital principles and effects of sound money is that it does not allow for politicians to easily avoid the budgetary and financial prerogatives required by principles upon which all good government should be based.

Essentially, there is absolutely no bulwark within a fiat monetary system that can prevent the coalition between government and central banks from abusing such a system and that provides government with the benefit of operating beyond authorized expenditures through the concealed nature of fiat monetary depreciation. Fiat money is popular with both governments and their agents, such as the central bank, because it allows for a radical form of inflationism that is rarely detected by the majority of the population of a country. It is indeed only the naïve mind that sees some benefit from the coalition between government and central banking, it is equally as naïve to see a benefit in a fiat monetary system that was designed and created for the sole purpose of imparting greater powers to government through its privileged agency of central banking.

This coalition must come to an end, but to do that there must be a restoration of all the principles that found the foundation of a sound monetary system.


"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun