-1 vote

Bill Still creator of "The Money Masters," and "The Secret of Oz" on the Gold Standard




Comment viewing options

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

Know any good sources?

I understand that a disconnect between the market price of gold and the official US$ price of gold started Dec 30, 1861 when NY banks suspended redemption of paper for gold (and this disconnect didn't go away until 1879). I'm having some difficulty finding good data on the size of that disconnect over time though.

And this is an interesting case of "printing". Part of the disconnect was probably war speculation, but a significant component was likely due to the amount of US (non-greenback) paper (mainly bank notes I think) staying essentially constant while Lincoln sold significant quantities of gold to the UK to fund his war. That devalued the paper notes just as surely as printing new ones would.

This chart verifies what you claimed. 1862-1879

http://www.sharelynx.com/chartstemp/AUPPBasket.php

Maybe and audit of the Department of Treasury before 1900 would be in order.

Free includes debt-free!

Thanks!

.

So why did the Union sell war bonds, why not conjure the cash.

Lincoln started monkeying with the money in 1862. Ten years later when the bonds expired was the depression of 1872. Why a depression? Because money was pulled from the economy to pay the bond debt.

The dislocation was temporary, as the money did not disappear but only changed hands.

Paper money created by fiat has never lasted more than 50 years. I disappears just as easily as it is created.

You description of Lincoln and his money has little to do with the historical reality. But Bill S has cherry-picked history to "prove" his point.

Mostly he prayed on the fear that the RedSheild controls the gold, so just use paper.

Constitutionally, the States must only use gold and silver Coin as tender for all debts. So Lincoln's Greenbacks weren't constitutional enough for the State's to use.

Free includes debt-free!

Citation? I don't think what

Citation? I don't think what you're saying is accurate.

If Ron Paul gets his way, debt free fiat currency will be possible. And that's fine, just as long as no law forces me to accept it.

You're right

And no law should. Hence competing currencies.

  • New Jersey's Premier Junk Removal Junk Service!
  • Accepts Bitcoin
    www.powercleanouts.com
    Check out my blog:
    www.yoanante.com

    For those who believe in the

    For those who believe in the path which Bill Still advocates, I certainly hope you can answer this question which I borrowed from the comments section of the video:

    "

    Can anyone explain to me why I should believe that if Congress had the power to print debt free fiat money that they wouldn't hyperinflate the money supply at even a faster rate than the Fed in order to get re-elected? Wouldn't they simply promise their constituents everything under the sun, and simply print to pay for it? What am I missing here?

    "

    To control inflation from printing they would levi taxes.

    If money was spent into existence instead of borrowed into existence you can completely remove any kind of income tax because income tax in the form that it exists now is just used to pay the interest on the existing national debt. If inflation got out of control then they would impose taxation to deflate the money supply by removing it from circulation, which would be very unpopular and show that the people in power have over spent. This should hopefully produce the effect of kicking them out of office the next election cycle for raising our taxes.

  • New Jersey's Premier Junk Removal Junk Service!
  • Accepts Bitcoin
    www.powercleanouts.com
    Check out my blog:
    www.yoanante.com

    I think you're going to find

    I think you're going to find most Ron Paul supporters strongly opposed to the use of anything as the medium of exchange that can be created without work. All fiat currency, debt based or not, require a group of men to be entrusted with power to create more of it at will. No man can be trusted with such power.

    I will admit bitcoin has diffused that power in an interesting way. In a sense bitcoin is not a fiat currency.

    I like your idea that a medium of exchange

    has to be created through some form of work. Bitcoin is created using a mathematical work formula. Which all though they are creating bits they did take quite abit of work and actual power consumption to produce.

  • New Jersey's Premier Junk Removal Junk Service!
  • Accepts Bitcoin
    www.powercleanouts.com
    Check out my blog:
    www.yoanante.com

    The comment is not missing anything.

    They would massively and continuously inflate the money supply. They would use printed money to buy votes, buy power and stuff their own pockets.

    LibertyBaby responded to your comment, but provided no real answer to your question. That's because there is nothing stopping the politicians from printing like mad. (The only thing that could stop them would be the desire of the people for sound money. But if that desire wins out, the greenback solution is rejected.)

    In fact, LibertyBaby thinks it's "great": If Congress prints a lot of money....great: we can pay off old debts, build a High-Speed Rail System, repair Cities

    That demonstrates a lack of knowledge of what wealth is and how money works. Printing money doesn't create wealth -- it steals it from people's current savings and their future wages. Congress printing lots of money is nothing more than congress issuing a devious and regressive tax that hits the poor and middle class the hardest while the rich are best able to shield their wealth from inflation, or even profit from the inflation making it a wealth transfer from the poor to the rich.

    LibertyBaby's alias and promotion of greenbackism don't really go together. Greenbackism requires fiat money. It requires the government use force to get people away from using sound money and get them to use the fiat money. It requires legal tender laws. It requires punitive taxes or outright prohibition on the use of real money. And it centralizes and concentrates power (relative to competing currencies), attracting corruption and begging to be wielded as a tool of the powerful via lobbyists. It is all about statism and tyranny.

    I have written more on the subject in this thread if you are interested.

    What do you think is happening now?

    That is exactly what the Federal Reserve is doing. We simply want to remove that power from private interest and give it back to the people to whom it rightfully belongs. No one is advocating printing money but instead what we are advocating is for making it fill its role as a means of exchange and a store of wealth.
    Read 5,000 years of debt. In the book it explains how coin the form of gold and silver was only used when empires had to use a common form of exchange to pay for their armies and have it be something that was available in far away lands. When they got into trouble was when they debased the coin with copper. The main point is that the only need in those times to use coin as we use them today was to grow an army and in local communities before empires most people would just owe each other favors for the things they needed.
    I think it is you who has a lack of knowledge of what wealth is and how money works. You don't have to outlaw gold or prohibit it while using fiat money, as you say. As a matter of fact colonial script was complete fiat money that worked incredibly well. You were still able to buy gold with it and guess what else. There was no taxes on that gold neither when you bought it or when you sold it. I don't understand you're argument. The problem with gold is the following.
    The banks own most of the gold in the world.
    It can be easily manipulated just as it has been in the last 100 years.
    Just because you own 10,000 or 100,000 in gold doesn't mean that you have a lot of gold. These bankers own metric tonnes of the stuff. Who do you think has the power. You with your 60 Krugerands or Eagles or a banker with 10,000 tonnes of the stuff.
    Gold would still be centrally controlled and manipulated.

  • New Jersey's Premier Junk Removal Junk Service!
  • Accepts Bitcoin
    www.powercleanouts.com
    Check out my blog:
    www.yoanante.com

    Republicae's picture

    Banks do not own most of the

    Banks do not own most of the gold in the world! Even the most contrived figures will show that is not true! I love you Greenbackers use of misinformation, fake quotes and deception...Bill Still trained you well.

    Do you realize that there is more gold in private hands than in all the Central Banks and Governments combined? Once gold and silver are released into circulation as money there is no way to control it, why do you think that governments and banker spent decades trying to get this world off the gold standard? If gold and silver were actually as controllable or able to be manipulated as you seem to suggest, they why did they spend so much time and effort to demonetize both metals?

    If you can show me a way that gold and silver money can be controlled once released into circulation as money then I might listen to you, otherwise you are simply making talking points without any actual credence to back up those points. You must also show how it would be possible to create a fiat paper money substitute that cannot be controlled, manipulated or managed by governments, bankers or anyone else...can you do that, of course you can't because it is simply not a possibility. There is no, absolutely no accountability to fiat paper money creation or manipulation.

    There is nothing more capable of being manipulated, controlled and managed than a piece of paper that bears an official government stamp on it that denotes a government determined value. Nothing that can be as unaccountable as a piece of paper within an inked image printed on it where the value is based on the issuance of the government or Central Bank.

    http://militantjeffersonian.com

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

    compare to competing currencies, not present system

    What do you think is happening now? That is exactly what the Federal Reserve is doing.

    The way to end being enslaved by Entity #1 is not to switch to being enslaved by Entity #2. Arguing that we are already enslaved so should accept a different slavery when I am (and most Ron Paul supporters are) calling for an end to the slavery is an argument with no merit.

    We simply want to remove that power from private interest and give it back to the people to whom it rightfully belongs.

    No one has the right to enslave me. Read the Declaration of Independence. Read the preamble to the Constitution. The purpose of our government is supposed to be to "secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity". That is incompatible with our government enslaving us.

    And the power to steal wealth does not rightfully belong to anyone, anymore than the power to murder or rape belongs to anyone.

    No one is advocating printing money but instead what we are advocating is for making it fill its role as a means of exchange and a store of wealth.

    1. You don't have paper money unless someone prints it. Advocating paper money is advocating the printing of it.
    2. Paper has a very poor history serving as a store of wealth. Name a single paper currency that has managed to hold its value for 100 years.
    3. LibertyBaby said "If Congress prints a lot of money....great". How is that not advocating the printing of money?

    Read 5,000 years of debt.

    Right, like I'm going to learn economics from an anti-capitalist anthropologist. I don't want to get side-tracked, but I looked through some of the Amazon reviews and watched some of this and that was more than enough to convince me this guy's spouting nonsense. (Contrast that to people like Bob Murphy, Milton Freidman, Ron Paul, Ayn Rand and many other people where I can watch just about any video of them and be convinced they are offering truth.) David Graeber is offering socialist, emotionally appealing, misdirected-evolved-empathy bullcrap of the "it takes a village" variety, not truth.

    most people would just owe each other favors for the things they needed

    You can't efficiently run a global economy on a non-binding non-quantitative "favors" system. I would not lend a stranger anything in such a system, and would probably not lend large amounts even to people I knew well.

    I think it is you who has a lack of knowledge of what wealth is and how money works.

    LibertyBaby was suggesting otherwise productive resources be forcibly diverted into a high-speed-rail boondoggle. Anyone who understands how money represents claims on real-world resources, how printing and spending new money redirects those resources, and how such centrally planned redirection of resources makes us all poorer would never suggest such a thing (much less use the word "great").

    If you want to learn real economics, start with "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt. Read it every few months until it sinks in.

    You don't have to outlaw gold or prohibit it while using fiat money, as you say. As a matter of fact colonial script was complete fiat money that worked incredibly well.

    Only if by "incredibly well" you mean it "depreciated rapidly".

    For colonial scripts to hold value it would have required that the states self-regulate their spending (match the tax collection rate in order to stabilize the money supply). Predictably, they failed to do so.

    Note that in (a fantasy-land type of) theory I would not be opposed to governments strictly sticking to this scheme -- printing a paper currency that voluntarily circulates and is only "fiat" in terms of paying government debt (taxes, fees, fines). However, in practice such a system will probably always eventually fail, and I would therefore be concerned about what the government then does upon such failure (e.g., switching the currency to be "fiat" for all debts, private and public).

    The problem with gold is the following. The banks own most of the gold in the world.

    That's not really a problem. They own most of the fiat too. Switch to a new fiat and they will likely own most of that.

    If you want to get the banks under control, do get rid of fractional-reserve fraud (where rather than issuing bank notes that are clearly marked as not being real money banks get to issue fiat), and do get rid of the Federal Reserve and the FDIC and all other government support of the banks, but don't force a printable currency on others (e.g., legal tender laws for private debt), and don't bother picking a system that isn't stable and will fail (as that is just kicking the can down the road at best).

    It can be easily manipulated just as it has been in the last 100 years.

    Maybe you should go read this recent article on zerohedge. Manipulating the gold market is rather costly. This past Monday someone dumped $1.24 billion of gold contracts (equiv. of 750,000 ounces of gold) on the market (driving down the price and causing the seller many millions in lost value), and all it did is give others an opportunity to buy cheaper. The price recovered and then some in a mere 5 hours.

    If banks like JPM/HSBC (short metals) were able to maintain $300/oz, they would. They can't. They've been failing to keep gold down for more than a decade now. (But then your .sig says you buy/sell PMs, so you should know this already.) And that's with the fraud. Eliminate the fraud and their ability to manipulate shrinks by orders of magnitude.

    Just because you own 10,000 or 100,000 in gold doesn't mean that you have a lot of gold.

    Yes, it does. If I had 10,000 oz I wouldn't even be typing this in right now -- I'd be busy submitting my resignation so I could get my retirement started. (I have actual productive things I could be doing then -- my day job pays well enough but is kind of stupid both in terms of benefit to society and in terms of satisfaction.)

    These bankers own metric tonnes of the stuff. Who do you think has the power. You with your 60 Krugerands or Eagles or a banker with 10,000 tonnes of the stuff. Gold would still be centrally controlled and manipulated.

    The same arguments apply to fiat. Either way you have to get rid of the fraud, and that requires an awakening of the people. Get rid of the fraud, and money will flow from the non-productive to the productive.

    Plus, your anti-gold "power" argument falls flat on its face when you look at the numbers:

    How much (above ground) gold is there in the whole world? It's somewhere around 5.3 billion troy ounces (a cube 20.4 m on a side).

    How much fiat (both actual paper and electronic) is there in the whole world? M2 in the US is around $10 trillion. M2 for Japan and EU (translated to US $) are each about the same size, and China about half that. That's around $35 trillion. (Adding other countries would, of course, only make this number even larger. Also, it would be more accurate to use M3, which would be larger still, but they don't publish it anymore.)

    So, now let's compare $1650 to 1 oz gold. If I have $1650 in hand, then I am holding 1/2.1E10 of the world's fiat. If instead I have 1 oz of gold in hand, then I am holding 1/5.3E9 of the world's gold. So if you equate "% owned" to "power", then my "power in gold" is about 4 times bigger than my "power in fiat".

    Allright

    I up vote your argument I just don't feel like arguing since it seems your mind is already made up and don't see any other escape out of the problems that we face other than a gold standard. Please understand that I am not arguing against the gold standard. It is much more preferable to the system that we have now.
    However, I still do not want to discredit the fact that Bill Still is the one that made realize that there is a problem with this nation and that the sickness is called the Federal Reserve System and fractional reserve banking. Paper money maybe hasn't worked very well for long periods of time but Tally sticks where used for over 700 years. Again I do appreciate you're argument and your opinion I just don't think that the gold standard is the only solution to our problem. I like Bitcoin very much and wish it was easier to carry around a Bitcoin wallet perhaps in a cell phone or something.
    Bitcoin is something that is not backed by anything and could function incredibly well as money. It is not centralized and it is not manipulated by its hoarders like so many precious metals are.
    As far as my numbers 10,000 or 100,000 I should have specified I meant that much in gold in USDs not in weight. If I had 10,000 ozt of gold believe me I wouldn't be here arguing with you I'd be out living it up.
    And to sum everything up, I am for total freedom my man. I don't want any one telling me how I should live, what I should save, what I should put in my body or how much I should work. I believe we are both on the same team here just have slightly contradicting views on how monetary policy should be pursued. All I really want I guess is competing currencies. Whether it be gold or silver backed, or whether its bitcoins or some sort of other device I just want to be able to decide what to choose and once in a while say you know what. This week I want to get paid in gold instead of whatever.

  • New Jersey's Premier Junk Removal Junk Service!
  • Accepts Bitcoin
    www.powercleanouts.com
    Check out my blog:
    www.yoanante.com

    Reaching agreement.

    I just don't feel like arguing since it seems your mind is already made up and don't see any other escape out of the problems that we face other than a gold standard.

    It seems you've been arguing with a fiction you created then. (Sounds exhausting!) I don't promote a gold standard, I promote competing currencies. I wasn't the one who brought up the word "gold" in this thread-branch, that was you. When people say things about gold (or gold standards) that are not true I may correct them, but that does not mean I am promoting a gold standard, it only means that I am promoting truth.

    However, I still do not want to discredit the fact that Bill Still is the one that made realize that there is a problem with this nation and that the sickness is called the Federal Reserve System and fractional reserve banking.

    And George W Bush made me realize that our "leaders" will look us right in the face and lie to us about why they are taking us into war. That doesn't mean the world wouldn't be a better place if he had never existed. Like I said, 90% of what Bill Still says on monetary policy is wrong. The remaining 10% may have helped get you here, but the 90% is (bill)still messing up a lot of people's thinking.

    Paper money maybe hasn't worked very well for long periods of time but Tally sticks where used for over 700 years.

    This appears to be another complete fabrication. You can't reason correctly if too much of your "historical knowledge" is actually fiction.

    As far as I can tell, tally sticks were used as recording devices and receipts, not money. I tried to find out where someone is claiming tally sticks were sound money for 700 years, which led me here. But that site appears to be pure fiction -- it claims tally sticks were used from 1100 - 1854 and that "only Tally Sticks were accepted by Henry for payment of taxes", but that claim appears to be false. (If you have better sources I will check them out. I highly suspect that any instance of tally sticks holding value for hundreds of years will be limited in scope rather than being the primary currency for an entire country for that whole time.)

    A tally stick receipt (used as a form of IOU) should be just as sound (and just as unsound) as any other IOU (so long as forgery and physical degradation aren't issues). Whether an IOU is represented as a tally stick or a bunch of electrons in an online account, the stability of the IOU's value depends primarily on how much the issuer of that IOU can be counted on to make good on the debt. I'm sure that somewhere some family or institution has honored some very long term (100s of years) IOU in full. The problem is when such IOUs are standardized and widely used so you are talking about lots of wealth in play, that attracts corruption.

    It [bitcoin] is not centralized and it is not manipulated by its hoarders like so many precious metals are.

    If you don't think anyone who manipulates gold or fiat now won't do the same to bitcoins should bitcoins become a commonly used currency (with a significant total market value), I've got some bridges to sell you -- cheap! (You'll know there's a real problem coming when some bank or hedgefund starts offering "demand deposit" bitcoin accounts [paying some interest of course] or starts creating bitcoin derivatives.)

    And to sum everything up, I am for total freedom my man. I don't want any one telling me how I should live, what I should save, what I should put in my body or how much I should work. I believe we are both on the same team here

    Good to hear. (Note that I suspect LibertyBaby is not on this team. I have asked LibertyBaby before about whether not I should be forced to use fiat and/or coerced away from other currencies, and I got no response on that -- but all kinds of words about much less important/fundamental things in the same comment.)

    just have slightly contradicting views on how monetary policy should be pursued.

    At this point the only difference I can identify in our positions is in how governments should collect taxes. I think you would be OK with them issuing (voluntarily traded) fiat and collecting taxes in said fiat, while I would kind of in theory be OK with that but in the real world I would worry about that spiraling out of control (because politicians love spending a lot more than they love taxing) and subsequently mutating into something neither of us would want.

    All I really want I guess is competing currencies.

    Great!

    Goals


    My goal is to be free and Independent of the Rothschilds control, and have a monetary system which is publicly transparent and non-secretive.

    Your goal is to focus on (or obsess about) whether or not the monetary instrument is paper or not.

    But you didn't paste the complete paragraph from my other post. In there I talked about transparency and accountability about the money supply. So (unlike with the current system) your concern about inflation does have public redress and response.

    Furthermore, you don't understand that by using a sovereign and independent monetary instrument that can never be created, introduced, contracted, or expanded by private profiteers (The Rothschilds, Morgan, Goldman Sachs etc.) -- this then takes all the Bankers priveleged-position and political power away from them.

    The government would then no longer be the borrower (and act as the slave) to this corrupt Banking Mafia Empire. The World Empire agenda would then go away.

    So this goal is far more important and far more transformative....than what the monetary unit is composed of.

    The only way to solve the hijacking of our Government, is to have a monetary unit be independent and free from The Rothschilds (New World Order) control. For Centuries, this is where manipulations of public governments, and the whole motivation for enslavement, and World Empire came from.

    You have to solve that problem (The Rothschilds) first.



    Your means will not reach your goal.

    My goal is to be free and Independent of the Rothschilds control, and have a monetary system which is publicly transparent and non-secretive.

    The federal government is neither of these things. Nothing is more transparent than an ounce of gold (or other hard asset which I fully own with no counter-party risk) sitting in my hand.

    Your goal is to focus on (or obsess about) whether or not the monetary instrument is paper or not.

    No, my goal is two-fold:

    • Protect my savings.
    • Help my fellow human beings do the same with their savings.

    History shows paper always fails to protect savings.

    So (unlike with the current system) your concern about inflation does have public redress and response.

    And I am giving my public opinion on inflation when I say I want none of it! Death to those who would steal from me by forcing me to save in the same thing they can legally (though not morally) counterfeit.

    Furthermore, you don't understand that by using a sovereign and independent monetary instrument that can never be created, introduced, contracted, or expanded by private profiteers (The Rothschilds, Morgan, Goldman Sachs etc.) -- this then takes all the Bankers priveleged-position and political power away from them.

    "sovereign" is not some magic word that turns statism, tyranny and theft into some force of good. Screw the state exercising sovereign control over my wealth.

    And as is common for your posts, you use a lot of words to make zero actual argument in support of your position vs competing currencies.

    The government would then no longer be the borrower (and act as the slave) to this corrupt Banking Mafia Empire.

    Your language indicates you do not understand the current situation. The government is not the slave here. We are. I want that slavery to end. You wish to just transfer ownership of that slavery from bankers to politicians.

    The World Empire agenda would then go away.

    As long as there are free thinking human beings on this earth, some will aspire to greater power. The only way you make that agenda go away is to totally crush the spirit of every individual human being.

    So this goal is far more important and far more transformative....than what the monetary unit is composed of.

    You don't get to steal my wealth to pursue your statist goals.

    The only way to solve the hijacking of our Government

    Is to reduce the power government wields in order to make it a less juicy target for lobbyist control. Giving government the power to print money is the opposite of what needs to happen.

    Reply...


    > my goal is two-fold ...
    •Protect my savings
    •Help my fellow human beings do the same

    Fine, but that can never happen if monetary unit is something that the Rothschilds (and their Central Banks and Investment Houses) already own, have owned for centuries, and control to a very large extent. So Gold/Silver do not solve the problem here, because it is still under the manipulations of the Banking powers.

    Case-in-point: Silver was at $50/oz at this time last year. Since then it sank like a stone, and one whole year later it is still just stuck at $30/oz. This is due to direct manipulation of the price by J.P. Morgan, and by the COMEX market. Just how protected would your savings really be then if you put it into something that can just plummet down 40% by J.P. Morgan and COMEX anytime they want to? Not very!

    > "sovereign" is not some magic word that turns statism, tyranny and theft into some force of good. Screw the state exercising sovereign control over my wealth.

    Sovereign just means native or independent here. This Country was founded in order to be independent and to separate itself from the British Empire (Imperialism) and from the Rothschilds Bank-of-England corrupt Banking system (which put the Colonies into debt). Guess what? America lost the Revolution: Because that same corrupt Banking model was infiltrated into this Country, and as a consequence we devolved back into the same Imperialism: now being forced to fight all-of-Britian's-Wars for them, and having the same Rothschilds debt-generating Banking system come in and usurp the government and control public policy.

    So we lost our National Sovereingty. That is important, and so yes it is a big deal here to understand the meaning of that word. Once again, you will never live under any economic freedom or individual freedom until and unless you get The Rothschilds Empire out of our lives and take away their control.

    And Gold won't do that (they own most of it).

    > You wish to just transfer ownership of that slavery from bankers to politicians.

    Yes....but understand, the Banksters do everything in total secrecy, and not for the good of anybody but solely themselves. They create money (and debt to you) to then give away to Foreign Banks, Wall Street, and finance economic crimes in total secrecy. But a public monetary system would be both transparent, open, and accountable, and also motivated no longer by the Bankers Global enslavement agenda, but instead to National (or sovereign) concerns.

    Transfering that control is necessary, for it is the only thing that takes away their global power and subjugation. This is the only way to ever get Independence.

    >As long as there are free thinking human beings on this earth, some will aspire to greater power. The only way you make that agenda go away is to totally crush the spirit of every individual human being

    No way. Free thinking human beings, whatever they wish, are totally powerless in comparison to The Rothschilds and the Global Banking System. This monolithic money power (Money Masters) has controlled governments all over the damn World (including our own) for centuries. Taking away their power would be an act of true liberation here, that would finally break the chains of the modern feudal system. And this system is indeed privately controlled - which is why every President always has a cabinet made up of Goldman Sachs executives.

    >Giving government the power to print money is the opposite of what needs to happen.

    Once again, you don't understand World History.

    You simplify things, and try to make the mere concept of public representation (i.e., government) evil. It is not. The evil is easily identified though. It comes from the Rothschilds using their wealth, and control of money, to buy off the governments all around the World -- through their Central Bank profit (for them) and debt system (for the victims).

    This is where the motivations for the New World Order agenda come from, and it is these people who profit and benefit.

    Government is just a service. If it is controlled by Private Power (Wall Street, Morgan-Rockefeller, Rothschilds) than it is an evil and selfish service. If it is controlled by a dictactor than it is an evil service. But if it is truly controlled by public representation, and it never reliant on private Bankers or private power to exist -- then you finally have independence, public control - i.e. a good service.

    Your Fire Department is a good government service. Why? Because it is a transparent and accountable service that is paid for by your town, and the criminal Rothschilds/Rockefellers/Morgans/etc. do not control it. But if your Fire Department was run by a global criminal Mafia racket then it would be an evil service. Get it?

    The same principle holds with monetary policy. The overidding objective here has to be to break free from The Rothschilds Empire (Private Central Banks, and Global Banks) and massive control.

    That's what Bill Still's approach does, and Gold/Silver won't.

    Republicae's picture

    First, the Rothschild MEME

    First, the Rothschild MEME doesn’t hold much water, considering that even GATA states that the Rothschild family holding of gold may be 5% of total above ground gold. Central Banks and Governments hold perhaps 30 to 33% with the remaining gold in the hands of private individuals worldwide.

    The idea that even with a 5% holding of gold reserves that the Rothschilds could control the gold markets to any substantial extent defies all market realities. The only way that Central Banks and governments influence gold markets is because they have the access to readily available markets at their access. Even at that, they cannot control the commodity markets in gold and silver to the extent that you claim due to the fact that markets do not react well to such influences and usually give definite signals to such attempts at influences.

    So much for your Rothschild MEME, what next? I mean thus far you have yet to make a case for any type of fiat currency that is not subject to some type of external or internal control and manipulation. You have, in fact, not yet made an adequate case against gold as being a money that is not easily manipulated or controlled.

    http://militantjeffersonian.com

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

    We're done here.

    foo: "The government is not the slave here. We are. I want that slavery to end. You wish to just transfer ownership of that slavery from bankers to politicians."

    LibertyBaby: "Yes"

    End of discussion.

    Snip-ing my responses does not win your argument



    {repeat}
    Yes....but understand, the Banksters do everything in total secrecy, and not for the good of anybody but solely themselves. They create money (and debt to you) to then give away to Foreign Banks, Wall Street, and finance economic crimes in total secrecy. But a public monetary system would be both transparent, open, and accountable, and also motivated no longer by the Bankers Global enslavement agenda, but instead to National (or sovereign) concerns.

    Transfering that control is necessary, for it is the only thing that ever takes away their global power and subjugation. This is the only way to ever get Independence.

    This monolithic money power (The Rothschilds and the Global Banking System) has controlled governments all over the damn World (including our own) for centuries. Taking away their power would be an act of true liberation here, that would finally break the chains of the modern feudal system. And this system is indeed privately controlled - which is why every President always has a cabinet made up of Goldman Sachs executives.

    Government is just a service. If it is controlled by Private Power (Wall Street, Morgan-Rockefeller, Rothschilds) than it is an evil and selfish service. If it is controlled by a dictator than it is an evil service. But if it is truly controlled by public representation, and it never reliant on private Bankers or private power to exist -- then you finally have independence, public control - i.e. a good service.

    Your Fire Department is a good government service. Why? Because it is a transparent and accountable service that is paid for by your town, and the criminal Rothschilds/Rockefellers/Morgans/etc. do not control it. But if your Fire Department was run by a global criminal Mafia racket then it would be an evil service. Get it?

    The same principle holds with monetary policy. The overidding objective here has to be to break free from The Rothschilds Empire (Private Central Banks, and Global Banks) and massive control.

    If you fail to do that, then you've ultimately done nothing....for everything that they control is rigged!!

    Republicae's picture

    Why do you think the

    Why do you think the Banksters love fiat money? Why do you think they spend decades trying to demonetize gold and silver? Those are questions at the heart of the matter, why do you avoid them so ardently and support yet another type of fiat currency that can and will be just as manipulated as the Greenback system of Lincoln was, or the Federal Reserve Note System is, do you actually think that there is such a thing as a fiat paper money substitute system that cannot be easily manipulated to benefit either bankers or governments? Do you actually place so much trust in elected officials as to think that they would restrain themselves if they had the power of the printing press at their disposal?

    http://militantjeffersonian.com

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

    Here's the difference


    Currently, the Banksters (Rothschilds, Morgan, Rockefeller, et. al) control the creation, supply, and all existence of money for their personal profit, and they also do this in total secrecy and are accountable to no absolutely one. So all sovereignty is lost here, because private profiteers are the masters over (and above) the government -- which has become reduced down to just "borrowers" and "yes men".

    So it is like the Mafia (or the CIA) being in charge of the public safety in your neighborhood. Crimes are committed, they steal your money, and there is absolutely no way to ever seek redress, and with this system they distort everything and (by design) drive our Nation into debt - in order to maximize their profits. So wouldn't you prefer the local police rather than the Mafia?

    Control of the money has to, as Thomas Jefferson stated, be returned back to the people -- and controlled through the public Treasury. Debt-free money would create no borrowing, no bonds, and no loans (paid over to private Bankers), so already that is much, much better than the current system.

    Secondly, if the creation of money is something that is an independent and sovereign instrument (like "greenbacks"), then the Rothschilds would have no power and no control over that instrument. Hence the government would be freed from the iron-clad grip of: Goldman Sachs, Morgan, Rockefeller, etc.. Take away the Bankers control...and then the whole motivation for following this far off "New World Order", Global Empire, Global Police-State agenda would no longer exist anymore. The motivation to march to the Banksters orders wouldn't exist, and public concerns would once again become the more dominant agenda (as it should).

    Third, only a public, transparent, open process (by the government), for managing the money can then be monitored and acted upon by the people. If Congress prints a lot of money....great: we can pay off old debts, build a High-Speed Rail System, repair Cities, etc. and if they go too far people can vote them out of office. If they print too little, there would be similar public response and accountability.

    But under the Banksters system, all the decisions are made in total secret, and you cannot ever fire Ben Bernanke, or fire Goldman Sachs (in fact they are the invisible unelected government under the current system). Under this current system, Wall Street and Global Bankers always run the show. Nothing ever changes, and their is no incentive for the government to ever "do the right thing" (both Party candidate are financed by Goldman Sachs, Wall-Street, and under the policy direction of the CFR).

    ---

    The problem with Gold/Silver is that the Rothschilds and their Central Banks own and control a huge supply of it (and have for centuries). They own and control the big investment houses, and control the COMEX market. So, as with FRNs, they can easily manipulate and distort the supply as well, and cause the price to gyrate wildly, generate fake booms, busts, recessions, depressions, etc. For example, Silver was at 50/oz last year at this time. Now a whole year later it is stuck at 30/oz. What if that were your bank acount? No thanks.

    So Bill Still is correct. We need the money to be a sovereignly controlled (publically controlled) instrument, and an independent managed process from the predatory profiteerists, global elites, and current private Banking/Investment powers.


    Republicae's picture

    The primary purpose of

    The primary purpose of Central Banks is to finance government excess, that’s the reason for their creation. Of course, this was in conjunction with the bankers themselves, it’s called Mercantilism and it’s been around for a long, long time. There is and has been a symbiotic relationship created between all Central Banks and the governments that create them, for good reason, Central Banks are created at the behest of governments for the very purpose of maintaining those governments and allowing those governments to operate beyond the measure of accountability. Neither would exist without the other!

    You seem to exculpate government from the entire equation when government has always sought a way to extend its power beyond the limitations of direct taxation, fiat money allows for just that! With a fiat monetary system and a Central Bank, governments can escape the necessity of directly taxing the people for expenditures, thus the government can and does spend as though there were no tomorrow because the fiat monetary system allows it to happen exactly the way it does. Can you imagine that this government could actually spend as much as it does if it had to raise every single dollar it spend from direct taxation? There would be an instant revolt, but above that it would destroy the economy. Thus the fiat paper money system was designed, along with the Central Banking system to administer the system in order to allow this and other governments to operate beyond the measure of either accountability of transparency. Fiat paper money systems are, by the very nature of their construction, deceptive and lend themselves to manipulation. Gold and silver money however, do not! A government must operate within the limitations of budgetary restraint otherwise it must tax in order to raise the revenues under a gold and silver monetary system. That is not necessary under any fiat monetary system.

    Do you think that just because a government is in charge of the issuance of fiat paper money that the results of such issuance would actually be any different than the current system? Do you actually think that this government could simply print up as much money as it needed to construct a fast-rail system without actual monetary and economic consequences? Do you have such a simply conception of market economics to believe the tripe that has been fed you by Bill Still and Ellen Brown?

    You mention Thomas Jefferson and yet you seem to ignore that Jefferson was an stance opponent to fiat paper money and, in fact, was an advocate of gold and silver. First, you ignore so much that it is hard to know just where to begin. Jefferson knew, unlike Bill Still or you, that there is no such thing as a debt-free fiat paper note. All notes are just that, a note that legally obligates the issuer to the note. Jefferson also knew that gold and silver were the only debt-free money because gold and silver are double assets on both sides of the ledger, unlike a fiat paper note which no matter how it is issued is a debt obligation to the issuer of the note. If you can explain just how a note can be debt-free I would definitely listen however, since it is an absolute impossibility for a note of any issue to not carry an obligation with it then I have my doubts if you can come up with any explanation to the contrary.

    Now, Jefferson also understood that government issued notes are debt obligations that always, without exception, require repayment of that debt at some point with an asset.

    Thomas Jefferson is widely quoted to support the Greenbacker claims, Bill Still has had to recant on many of the quotes he used such as this FAKE one attributed to Jefferson, the same quote that I believe you are referring to in your post:

    "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

    The Greenback system was far from being an independent monetary system, it was a system that relied upon the issuance of bonds in order to finance the system, much in the same way as Federal Reserve Notes are today. Your example therefore, doesn’t hold much water in light of the actual historical facts, but then again anyone who listens to Bill Still is not too concerned with facts are they?

    The greatest beneficiary of the Greenback system besides the illegitimate government of Lincoln was, in fact, the bankers. Many of the same banking families that later participated in the formation of the Federal Reserve got their beginnings under the Lincoln Administration and the Greenback system. The bankers raked in a fortune under the Greenback system, far from being opposed to the system they embraced it for exactly what it was, a system of paper notes that could be easily manipulated for the benefit of the few, both politicians and bankers and corporations.

    That fact alone should cause any rational person to question the premise of the Greenback system as it was promoted and especially today as it is being promoted by the likes of Bill Stills and Ellen Brown. The fact is that the Banksters had control over the Greenback system and reaped huge wealth from the system. Lincoln was, after all, the Champion of the Central Banking system and fought Andrew Jackson’s attempt to do away with the Charter of the National Bank, even after Lincoln became President he still criticized Jackson for ridding this country of the National Bank.

    It is amazing that there is such an incredible contradiction in the whole premise of the modern Greenbackers. They claim to support a system that is anti-banksters and yet they use as their foundation the Greenback system which was, by its very nature, one of the most corrupt, banker/politician controlled, debt-laden systems of fiat money in the history of the world. The Greenback system helped invent the entire bond market, prior to that there was no need for such markets under the gold and silver monetary system. Lincoln’s National Banking Acts were specifically passed to provide the facilitation of the newly formed bond market, which would later be what we know today as Treasury Bonds and Bills.

    Government has never been able to act with much trust when it comes to money, why then do these modern Greenbackers think that our government could be trusted with the issuance of a fiat paper money any more than the Federal Reserve Banking system can? I’ve never understood that! Factually, if Congress were limited to the specific enumerated powers regarding the issuance of gold and silver, as the Constitution declares, then there would not be the issues raised by the Greenbackers. The market would take care of interest rates, the monetary mechanics of market economics would restrict the inflow/outflow of gold and silver, the balance of trade would be relatively equalized due to those market mechanics and there would be relatively little room for any manipulation or control over the money itself, additionally due to the fact that gold and silver are accrue no interest upon issuance it is amazing that the Greenbackers don’t recognize that the almost answer to their own questions is right before their eyes: Gold and silver. Debt is controlled due to the fact that a budget must be maintained, that spending can only be within the restraints of that budget and there are no interest attachment to the issue of the money itself. Bankers are deprived from profiting on the issuance of either gold or silver, the transparency is innate in gold and silver, it is a double-asset and self-liquidates debt upon payment.

    http://militantjeffersonian.com

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

    Thank you ever so much Liberty Baby

    It is amazing to me that the essence of almost all the calamity in our world can be reduced to the fractional reserve banking ponzi scheme that is tolerated through the central banks. If we can end this, our world will be an infinitely more wonderful place with peace and prosperity opportunities for all.

    beephree