part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QwQGIUBpDk&feature=watch_res...
part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANd2_JJ-jFE&feature=watch_res...
Thanks - Very educational, especially the part about the physical concentration of gold as wealth, being why people have chosen it throughout history. With paper money, inflation created by central banks' dilution of the money supply means that wealth stored in dollars loses purchasing power because of the bountifulness of its creation. How can something that can be easily created be a better form of money then something that cannot be easily created? Fundamentally, it just does not make sense.
And to those who say - yea, but you just don't let dollars sit without investing them in something that rises in value such as equities. Sure, but part of the rise in value (assuming your speculation results in a rise in value) is offset by monetary inflation. If gold money was invested in a rising stock would you not have the benefit of the rising stock price without the offsetting devaluation of the money being invested - a better overall result?
Besides - Why should someone have to speculate in the stock market and risk losing principle just to try to stay even or ahead of government created inflation?
For any issue - Who wants to use Government force?
That is the question to ask. It separates lovers of liberty from tyrants.
Bill Still and all greenbackers want to use the state to enforce government controlled money.
Gold money is choice, fiat legal tender is force coercion tyranny.
As Ernest Hancock says
Freedom is the answer What is the question?
If Bill Still and his ilk are promoting freedom and the general welfare then they should endorse monetary freedom of choice.
why do you support him?
Bill Still is just ignorant, and spreads his ignorance to others. He uses the Rothschilds to incite irrational fear in people and drive them to his evil cause much the same way as the neo-cons use the threat of terrorists to do the same for their cause.
He talks about how gold is "concentrated money", falsely equating the physical density of one's personal wealth with the concentration of wealth within society. (Physical concentration of wealth is one of the main reasons why people chose gold throughout history -- it's more practical than trying to store your savings as 40,000 tons of pig iron where storage costs will eventually eat your entire savings. Aside: Platinum would have been another good choice, except it requires higher temperatures to work than earlier civilizations could feasibly manage. In the modern age the only edge gold seems to have over platinum is historical/psychological. To all of those who think gold is a bad choice because the "bankers own it all", fine, use platinum. Ruthenium, rhodium, palladium and indium are other possibly suitable choices -- they were not used historically due at least to the tiny technical problem of them not having been discovered.)
He goes on and on about how he's for deconsolidation of power, but then he distorts reality and pretends that gold in the people's hands isn't deconsolidation of power, but centralization of the power to issue money (as bills of credit presumably) in the federal government somehow is deconsolidation of power. He would have us believe (at a time when congress is passing things like NDAA with overwhelming majorities) that congress will just do what's in our best interest.
He claims the federal reserve represents the banks (true) while ignoring that congress does too. (Guess who passed the Federal Reserve Act in the first place.) He talks about the revolving door between JPM and the fed while ignoring the revolving door between Goldman Sachs and the executive branch. (And if I go to opensecrets.org and investigate congress, does anyone really think I will find a congress free of banker influence?)
His claim that "money should be created in the public interest" is ridiculous -- money printing is theft (it devalues existing currency and reduces real wages). Theft is not "in the public interest".
He says "nations should not be allowed to borrow [...] they give up their sovereignty" which is false. As long as a nation is sovereign (and can defend itself) it can default on its debt at any time. In fact, the US has defaulted multiple times already.
He states that "you need to eliminate the ability of the federal government to borrow [...] that's an automatic limiter on congressional spending because if the congress could not borrow money then they would have to feel the political consequences of overspending immediately because they would have to increase taxes to pay for it". This is completely inconsistent with the other things he is saying. You only have fed-government-issued bills of credit if congress has the power to issue such currency. If congress has the power to issue such currency, then inability to go into debt is no limiter on congressional spending.
But the worst part is that Bill Still doesn't even comprehend the US Constitution.
Ron Paul (as quoted by Bill Still): "The constitution says that only gold and silver can be legal tender."
Bill Still: "It doesn't say that anywhere in the constitution."
Ron Paul is absolutely correct.
The way the constitution works, the federal government only has powers which are explicitly granted in the constitution. If the constitution does not say the federal government can do it, then the federal government is not supposed to do it. Nothing in the constitution grants the federal government the power to make any money be legal tender. (Technically the federal government can't even make gold and silver be legal tender.)
However, for the states it's a different story. States have the power to do anything they want as long as that power is not explicitly prohibited in the constitution.
If the constitution said nothing about legal tender, the federal government would still have no power to make anything legal tender. On the other hand, states could then make whatever they wanted be legal tender (including for example, state-issued bills of credit).
Since the constitution does prevent states from making anything other than gold and silver be legal tender, and the constitution does not grant the federal government the power to make anything legal tender, the net result is that only gold and silver can be legal tender.
That does not mean only gold and silver can be money. Constitutionally speaking, people can use whatever they like as money -- platinum, bank notes, Bill Still videos. But no one, neither the federal government, nor states, nor individuals/corporations, has the constitutional authority to make any of those legal tender.
(BTW, this is one reason why the Federal Reserve Act is unconstitutional -- it makes FRNs legal tender.)
They transfer wealth but not disease.
I don't know about the other metals.
Bump your comment.
Free includes debt-free!
Come on guys, "The Money Masters" is bunk. Ok, fine, it attacks the Fed, but that's about the ONLY thing it gets right.
This moron doesn't support Paul overtly because he and his idiotic film advocate a FIAT CURRENCY run BY CONGRESS, not a market based currency. Aside from that, his assertion that Lincoln was anti-big banks is the most ludicrous thing I've heard. Lincoln was a lifetime Whig and a disciple of Henry Clay. He CAMPAIGNED on a central bank and protectionist tariffs. Christ, he even claims that Lincoln was assassinated as some sort of big banker plot. Guy is a freakin moron. The only thing that annoys me about John Wilkes Booth is that he didn't get to Lincoln the Butcher sooner.
Gold and Silver have been contaminated and controlled by The Rothschilds for centuries. For they (and their Central Bank systems) own most of the World's Gold. And they also own the COMEX market (via J.P. Morgan and Wall Street) and have enormous control over its price (and wild price swings).
Last year at this time Silver was at $50/oz. One whole year later it is stuck down at around $30/oz (a 40% drop). Now, what if that were your personal Bank Account? Does that sound safe (-40%)? No thanks.
Lincoln was for DEBT-FREE currency that would involve no borrowing, and no payments back to Bankers (theft). The Bankers would not control the money supply in secret. If we had that model today, not only would we have a transparent process that could actually be monitored, but we would also not have 15 Trillion Dollars of debt (and accumulating systematically) by The Rothschilds For-Profit Central Bank system. In fact, a Sovereign Banking system would finally take away the power and the influence of The Rothschilds, and their whole World Empire agenda.
But a National Bank that is debt-free, would operate much like a State-Bank (North Dakota), or a Co-Op. I would prefer that system to something like Gold which is controlled to a large degree by The Rothschilds, and their various ponzi-schemes (COMEX) which we then have to pay for (from the debt produced, and trillions given to foreign banks, foreign governments, IBS/IMF/WorldBank, etc.).
Public control is always better than predatory, for-profit, private Rothschilds/Morgan/Rockefeller control.
LibertyBaby...Why do you keep spewing out this driveling misinformation, is that simply your purpose? GATA reports, as well as other independent groups who watch gold and silver closely, that the Rothschild family may own 5% of all gold reserves, that's not much in the scheme of things, nor does it fit into your propaganda, does it? Additionally, those reports show that Central Banks and Governments may own 30% of all gold reserves, the remainder of reserves are in the hands of private individuals.
Now, to continue to debunk your assertions about the Lincoln Greenback:
Under the Greenback system, it was initially the debt-obligated promise to redeem the Greenbacks in gold that allowed for such confidence. When the government reneged on it’s promise, the confidence in the government’s ability to meet its debt obligations waned drastically.
In a similar technique of monetizing debt as the FED, in 1862, prior to the National Banking Acts, the Treasury was authorized to buy government bonds, bonds that it issued, with Greenbacks it also issued. If you want to understand the manner by which the Federal Reserve operates, you must understand that the entire initial blueprint for the system was created under the Lincoln Administration. The blueprint for the bond market was created and the format for FRNs was also formulated during Lincoln’s reign.
Actually, Greenbacks were printed and issued in almost the same manner as Federal Reserve Notes are today, there is no direct interest involved with the printing of FRNs either, the whole structure is based on the sale of U.S. Treasuries. Federal Bonds were sold in order to borrow money for the Union, so the question is what is the difference between the two? Essentially, there is not much difference. Each Note does not have a direct tie to interest; only the Treasuries issued and sold carry an interest obligation.
Just like Greenbacks. When the American Note Printing Company was commissioned to print up the initial Greenbacks, the government also issued Federal Bonds to sale, as a debt obligation...like I said, not much difference. There is however, a period in time during the year 1864 when the government being desperate for funding because the bond sales were faltering, that it issued a new and very strange Greenback, it was one that had a direct interest obligation to each and every Note. The government hoped that the new Notes would not be used as currency and would only be held as an investment, they were wrong. This too proved to be a disaster economically and monetarily. So, there is a very strange mix of things that went on during the 1860s with the Greenbacks. Of course, we rarely hear about such issues because frankly, when you delve into the history of the Greenbacks the subject is not extremely exciting, well except for monetary students.
Additionally, the obligation to redeem Greenbacks with the promise of gold was also a debt obligation on the currency itself. One of the purposes of the Greenback system was to create an artificial market for government bonds, which proved to be a windfall for those politically connected industrialists and bankers. There was also created an artificial relationship between money and currency, the same one we have until this day, if you are not aware of the fact, the two are different.
Now the process of fiat monetary creation does involve debt, it is, in a very real sense the organization of debt into a currency system, but it is through the issuance of actual interest obligated U.S. Treasuries that interest is accrued, FRNs do not bear a direct interest obligation on them. In other words, no direct interest payment or premium is required at the time of economic exchange in everyday life. The strange thing about the process is that the U.S. Treasuries are nothing but government decreed values, fiat values that are securitized by fiat FRNs, which are securitized by fiat U.S. Treasuries. It is a scam beyond imagination!
The government borrows through issuing bonds today; it borrowed through issuing bonds during the Lincoln Administration. The Greenbacks were simply a way to avoid the use of gold as a direct means of exchange during that period and limit Lincoln to budgetary restraints that gold would place upon him as he waged his Un-Constitutional War to destroy the Constitutional Republic, of which it has never been restored since. Today, the fiat FRN system is used in the same way, to allow this government to expand itself.
On a purely historical note:
On September 1, 1865, the public debt was almost $3 Billion, with less than half of it having the possibility of being funded. Bonds issued by the Union government of Lincoln carried at least 5 different rates of interest and matured at 19 different periods of time, some of which were convertible, or redeemable, but only at the option of the government.
Congress began an investigation in the causes of the enormous debt and found that the debt could be directly contributed to the Greenback system more than the war itself. It was estimated that the debt was four times as much as it would have been without the Greenback system. The first task was to reduce the volume of Greenbacks and by December 18, 1865 a resolution was passed for the contraction of the currency and to resume specie payments as soon as possible.
Since the debt accrued under the Greenback system had been so enormous, the Funding Act of April 12, 1866 authorized the conversion of short-term interest-bearing bonds into long-term bonds, but the entire process was difficult.
Your argument is completely illogical; you have already been discredited about the MYTHS you are espousing; now you are desperately attempting to split some hairs because the Treasury issued the Greenbacks. So first, you essentially state that Lincoln saved the country from an enormous debt that was a total FABRICATION!
I strongly suggest you read Lincoln's Annual Message to Congress on December 1, 1862, his Annual Message to Congress on December 1, 1864. Also, do a little real research on the only State in the Union that refused the use of Fiat Greenbacks, that was California and it did not suffer in the way the rest of the Union States did under the Greenback fiasco!
Did you know that Federal Reserve Notes can be and are issued without a direct Debt Obligation and another one of your Greenbacker buddies loves the FED for QE, and can't wait for more.
Quantitative Easing is one method, but even when U.S. Treasuries are issued through the Treasury in the Bureau of Printing and Engraving, the Federal Reserve never ever issues Federal Reserve Notes and the actual borrowing is, like it was with the Lincoln Greenbacks, through the sale of U.S. Treasuries. It is those Treasuries, which carry the actual debt obligation of interest. Federal Reserve Notes are, as were Greenbacks, IOUs, which are a legal notification of a debt obligation, not a direct debt instrument. Likewise, the Bonds issued by the Lincoln administration were almost exactly like the U.S.Treasuries issued today, in fact, Bonds today are based upon, to a very large degree, the system that was instituted by the Lincoln Administration. Thus, in a very real sense, even Federal Reserve Notes are issued by the government as nothing more than a medium of exchange, as well as a legal notification of the debt obligation through the sale of U.S.Treasuries.
While the Confederacy relied upon loans for about 35% of their financing, the Union raised 65% of its revenues through BORROWING through the sale of BONDS! DEBT, DEBT, DEBT…I thought the Greenbacks eliminated the need for a nation to accumulate DEBT?
You and other Greenbackers use Lincoln's Greenbacks as the example of what you claim to be "Sovereign Money" debt-free, but since the Greenback system did not prevent the accumulation of DEBT then the argument that your proposal for a "debt-free" currency, a "Sovereign currency" based on the Lincoln Greenback does not hold any water at all when you use that type of fiat currency as a means to prevent the nation from accumulating DEBT!
Now, if there had been no such accumulation of DEBT during the Civil War on the part of the Union government then I might be inclined to at lease give your position an intellectual consideration, something that you have proven incapable of doing when considering the case for sound money. I believe that part of the reason for that is because you have been so intensely indoctrinated by many of the bogus websites that to think for yourself, or actually do historic economic and monetary research would deflate everything you have misplaced your faith in.
The Lincoln administration, through the instrumentality of Salmon Chase, enlisted one of the great Philadelphia Bankers: Jay Cooke to administer the sale of Federal Bonds, those Bond sales obligated the Union to the tune of $3 Billion Dollars, an enormous sum of DEBT at that period of time, relate that to today with the rate of inflation and Union DEBT was higher then our current debt obligations. Yep, those Greenbacks sure worked well, didn’t they LibertyBaby?
Of course, in order to make the whole system work, the government imposed certain legal tender laws which were passed in February of 1862, upon the passage, the American Bank Note Company was commissioned to print up $150 Million in Greenbacks, also known as DEMAND NOTES, because they had the DEBT OBLIGATION, from the start, to be redeemed at a future date in gold specie. Fractional Reserve Banking was also a very vital part of the entire Greenback system, without it the system would have imploded almost immediately upon such a vast circulation.
Of course, the DEBT was becoming so enormous that by July of 1863, Salmon Chase suspended convertibility of Greenbacks into specie, yet another broken promise by politicians! By March of 1864, Chase decided that importers should be allowed to deposit Greenbacks at the Treasury and receive gold in return at a premium below market. This was an attempt, a failed attempt, to stop the drastic depreciation of the Greenback. By that time Chase’s plan was implemented, the Greenback was at 57 cents gold. From there it just went down hill.
Now the most interesting thing about the Federal Bonds issued by the government was that interest on those Bonds could NOT BE PAID IN GREENBACKS, ONLY IN GOLD!!!!!! Thus, as the Greenback fiat money was debased through constant inflation, the investors, mostly wealthy industrialists and BANKS, enjoyed a windfall, profiting from the DEBT in gold that was still priced in pre-war gold standard. The Greenback system, in conjunction with the Federal Bond program was intended to concentrate investment capital into the hands of the few politically connected industrialist and Banking families!
So, now you know that the Greenback system didn’t prevent debt, it was associated with Federal Bonds sales and they were obligations for future redemption in gold specie. Essentially, there is nothing really different between Greenbacks and modern Federal Reserve Notes.
Your premise is based upon a complete supposition that Greenbacks were debt-free and prevented the accumulation of debt by the Union that IS NOT TRUE! By 1862, it was becoming extremely expensive to run the war effort, topping $2 Million per day and the Union’s ABILITY TO BORROW waxed and waned with battle victories and defeats. Obviously, the Greenback system, at least based on your groundless assertions, didn’t work very well if the Union needed to Borrow, did it?
Now, why don’t you educate yourself and stay away from those highly questionable sources you cite…I have read that bogus website, but guess what, I have read, through about 5 decades, just about every book there is to read on the subject, almost every economic paper published prior to, during and after the Civil War. If you want a real reading list I will be more than happy to provide you with one. It really is evident where you get your information, it is the same place that DrKrbyLuv and others, such as Soleprobe gets much of their information, and guess what, there are no valid sources cited, not actual historical documentation, only a type of propaganda with a particular purpose. The strange thing is that none of you who support the Greenbacker ideology seem to have an original thought in your heads, you all spout almost word for word the same tripe as through you were part of a collective.
Now, actually Lincoln was far more reluctant about the issuing of Greenbacks then he was about The National Bank Act, have you read the actual writings of Lincoln on the subject, or are you getting your information form the questionable website you promote? I happen to have the complete collection of Abraham Lincoln’s writings, guess what Lincoln didn’t oppose The National Bank Acts of 1863 and 1864, in fact not only didn’t he VETO the Acts, but he signed them into law, if he opposed them why did he not VETO them, he had the power to do so! I suggest your stop relying on various websites and start actually reading the words of those who were there during that period. Read the writings of Lincoln, read Salmon Chase, read Jay Cooke’s writings, READ something other than simply relying on websites that provide NO PRIME SOURCE, which is one of the prerequisites of valid documentation and research. If you really want to read a well-documented work, filled with Source Footnotes, then read The History of Money and Banking in the United States from the Colonial Era to WWII, that is if you can wade through it.
"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun
christ you're naive. can you try reading a book by an ACTUAL economist rather than this Money Master/Alex Jones idiocy
Try reading these guys
You are absolutely correct Revere...the amount of inconsistencies, misinformation, fake quotes, lies, deception and generally bad economic and monetary understandings of Bill Still, Ellen Brown, Mike Montagne and other Greenbacker DeceptiCons is so astounding that the only way you could get hooked by them is to not know or understand the history of money, economic principles and just how markets really work!
Or be a stupid, illiterate, poorly read, gullible idiot, like those who believe this BS.
Well, that's probably a very good possibility...judging from some of comments.
Agreed, and I use the word BELIEVE advisedly because that's literally ALL they can do, considering the childish and silly assertions made in that horrible video are devoid of either fact OR reason.
I am constantly struck by the abject folly within the minds of men....as well as their poverty of reason.
Don't let the RedShield bogeyman get you.
You need the Ghostbusters.
In other words your fears are made worse by paper money not better. Better is a Market determined money that can be flexible enough to prevent interventions.
Look up Operation Bernhard, the Nazi's destroyed the British currency in WWII and it is one of the primary reasons the British lost their place as reserve currency of the world.
There WAS NO world reserve currency until Brenton Woods.
No, Britain lost its power because they inserted their stupid heads, unnecessarily, into a German/Polish dispute over Danzig, which was stolen from Germany after WWI, by giving a war guarantee to Poland and thus, thrust the whole damn world into a war that never would've happened otherwise. They bankrupted and collapsed their empire THEMSELVES with their idiotic and suicidal foreign policy decisions.
Read Pat Buchanan's great book on the subject
Untrue. The Bretton Woods system was a reiteration of the gold-exchange standard of the interwar years, the only difference being that the dollar replaced the pound as the base currency.
See Rothbard, "History of Money and Banking in the United States," part 4, entitled 'The Gold-Exchange Standard in the Interwar Years.'
"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."
billstill in 2007, on the DP.
I thought so too!...he's like a really bad nickel, he keeps turning up.
Bill Still should of been fighting with us
of it that way before
(though you didn't specify exactly what part you were referring to) because Bill Still is horribly wrong on about 90% of everything he says in regards to monetary policy. With that as his platform, he should get his ass out of the Libertarian party and go found the Statism-Tyranny party.
I would highly recommend listening to the man that predicted the housing bubble (Ron Paul).
Or listen to George Washington: Paper money has had the effect in your state that it will ever have, to ruin commerce, oppress the honest, and open the door to every species of fraud and injustice.
Or Thomas Jefferson: Paper is poverty,... it is only the ghost of money, and not money itself.
Or Herbert Hoover: We have gold because we cannot trust Governments.
Or Voltaire: Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value -- zero.
Or Francisco d'Anconia: Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men's protection and the base of a moral existence. Destroyers seize gold and leave to its owners a counterfeit pile of paper. This kills all objective standards and delivers men into the arbitrary power of an arbitrary setter of values. Gold was an objective value, an equivalent of wealth produced. Paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce it. Paper is a check drawn by legal looters upon an account which is not theirs: upon the virtue of the victims. Watch for the day when it bounces, marked: 'Account overdrawn'.
Or George Bernard Shaw: The most important thing about money is to maintain its stability... You have to choose between trusting the natural stability of gold and the honesty and intelligence of members of the government. With due respect for these gentlemen, I advise you, as long as the capitalist system lasts, to vote for gold.
Or even Alan Greenspan before he sold out: In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists' antagonism toward the gold standard.
But for your sake and all our sakes, don't listen to Bill Still (or at least arm yourself first so you can shred the illogic and distortions rather than be devoured by them).
A take on Bill Still by poster 'akak' over at zerohedge:
There are several things that I intensely dislike about the man. First, as I alluded to earlier, he has repeatedly, and very dishonestly and disingenuously, misrepresented monetary history and wildly twisted facts in the attempt to support his pro-statist monetary position. He has claimed that prices were no more stable under the gold standard than under the post-1930s worldwide fiat monetary regime, which anyone besides Bernanke knows is a flat-out lie. Bill Still, also like Bernanke, has frequently implied if not outright stated that the "rigid" gold standard led to the frequent booms and busts of the 19th century, which Ron Paul has conclusively (and devastatingly) demonstrated in his book The Case for Gold were the product of credit bubbles and fractional reserve banking, NOT the fault of gold in any way. Bill also likes to state, contrary to all factual evidence, that a gold standard is inherently pro-elitist, as most of the world's gold is held by governments and central banks, when in fact less than 25% of it is thus held, and if the claims of GATA are to believed at all, in fact less than 15% of the total world gold stock is held by world central banks.
More than this, though, is the central message of Bill Still that all money MUST continue to be issued and controlled by governments --- this in and of itself makes him a raging statist, and is diametrically opposed to virtually ANYONE who calls himself a libertarian, and is fundamentally in opposition to free-market principles and philosophy. Not only are there no good reasons for governments to be the sole money-issuing entities, there are numerous good reasons for them NOT to be involved in issuing money in any manner whatsoever, as we are witnessing today. Yet he has even argued in favor of maintaining legal tender laws (which are nothing but monetary coercion and absolutism) in defense of his flavor of government-issued fiat currency.
Bill Still talks about "sovereign money", but that is nothing but a minor variation, at best, of the monopolistic fiat currency system we have today. No, I do not trust an unaccountable banking elite to issue and control our money, but do you REALLY think that putting that power in the hands of Congress would be any better? I say that such power should be left to the people in the form of the free market, by eliminating all legal tender laws and allowing competing currencies to arise, and letting the free market sort it out. When this has been allowed, every time throughout history, the people have almost invariably chosen copper, silver and gold as their money, but that does not preclude other and more novel options as well --- unlike both Bernanke and Bill Still, I would not presume to predict which money is "best", nor dare impose my choice on others.
So, to summarize, I see Bill Still not as some kind of monetary reformer, but as an implicit proponent of the current and failing fiat monetary system, regardless of whatever minor twists he would subject it to. When it comes to the issue of monetary freedom of choice, he is really no better than Bernanke or any other elitist central banker, and to have such a person dare call himself an advocate of liberty I find dishonest and grossly insulting.
Look at the phenomenon of Bitcoin. It doesn't even exist as a physical thing but people are using as a means of exchange and right now a bitcoin is worth over 5 USDs. I think Gold money is much better than what we have now which is debt based money however, I don't think that we have to be so harsh on Bill Still. He does make very valid points and his documentaries are very informative. As a matter of fact The Money Masters was what first introduced to Ron Paul. I watched the money masters and then I said what the hell is this Federal Reserve thing and who opposes it. And I ended up with Ron Paul as my man of choice for president and leader of this country.
Check out my blog:
Bill Still's monetarist ideas are very similar to those of Dennis Kucinich. It's worse in one way than the debt based fiat currency: There isn't even a counterparty that government must sell bonds to. I bet it would end in hyperinflation extremely quickly.
The fact the Abraham Lincoln printed our own constitutional money which wasn't based on debt. How about the fact that it survived until 1996 when they were finally taking out of circulation with out accumulating one penny in interest. This was the same money for over 100 years. Nothing new created and he didn't hyperspend like you all believe he would. I don't understand why you can't have to two arguments to this issue. I happen to agree with Bill Still however, Ron Paul is the only candidate I would support I just don't think that gold backed money is the ultimate solution of the monetary problem.
I think you should probably read your history instead of depending on Bill Still for your information. Bill Still has already had to recant much of what he said in Money Masters, so too has Ellen Brown in her Web of Debt. I suggest you look at the actual history of the Greenback, look at the amount of debt that was accumulated under that fiat paper system and how it was accrued as a direct result of the Greenbacks system. Factually, the debt increased 15-fold between 1861 and 1865, now if the Greenback system were so “debt-free” then why did Lincoln hyperspend (your word, not mine) under the Greenback system?
A Special Congressional Committee in the 1870s found that the war debt would not have been nearly, perhaps less than a quarter of what it was, had the government simply borrowed the money to conduct the war instead of going on the extremely complex and cumbersome Greenback system? In order to try to maintain the system Lincoln instituted the first income tax in this country. To support the Greenback system, the government issued special War Bonds, nothing more than a back-door interest on the currency itself. To support the Bond market, the government created the national banking system with the primary purpose of buying those War Bonds to back up the issue of the Greenbacks. The Big Banking Families, many of which got their start under the Lincoln Administration, loved the Greenback system and got absolutely filthy rich off of it, contrary to the popular opinion of those follower of Bill Stills and Ellen Brown.
If you are listening to Bill Still you are listening to little more than a charlatan, of course that is your prerogative if you wish to ignore history.
This was the same money for over 100 years.
What a total fabrication.
By the end of Lincoln's war of aggression, greenbacks had lost half their value. Losing 50% in 3 years isn't exactly my definition of "same money". And that happened despite the fact that the Act that created these things allowed you to purchase government bonds with greenbacks and get paid interest (5% for short-term bonds!) in gold.
From 1879 onward you could redeem greenbacks for gold, so they were not a paper currency anymore -- they were a gold standard currency. The congressional act that made that happen was passed years earlier (and making of plans to go back to the gold standard started right after the war), so of course the value of the greenback rose to meet gold's by 1879. Switching from pure fiat currency to gold backed currency is not exactly my definition of "same money".
Gold ownership was banned in 1933, so greenbacks were no longer redeemable. At that point greenbacks did not return to being a normal kind of fiat currency either because Federal Reserve Notes had been the primary "paper form" currency of the US since 1914, and all of the "normal" government-driven money-printing was happening in FRNs rather than greenbacks. (If there had only been greenbacks at that point you can rest assured that many of them would have been getting printed.) Switching from redeemable gold-backed currency to obsolete/secondary (and constantly devaluing) fiat is not exactly my definition of "same money".
Nothing new created and he didn't hyperspend like you all believe he would.
50% currency devaluation in 3 years is plenty bad. The only reason they fixed it after the war is that they believed the federal government did not have an inherent constitutional power to print money, but rather that power was derived as a necessity to fulfill its "defense" obligation. Once the war was over, they believed the federal government no longer had the right to print money and had to return to the gold standard.
Gold went from $20/oz to $1400/oz Gold before the end of the war.