Comment: Bill Still has a sorted

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Watch it again, Still is no fool (see in situ)

Republicae's picture

Bill Still has a sorted

Bill Still has a sorted background of support for ideas that could hardly be considered that of one who respects the Constitution. In 2005, he wrote for a documentary entitled The Monopoly Men, it was a good production like all of Stills, but among other things lauded the work and ideology of none other than Huey P. Long. Now Long was an ardent redistributionist, remember “Share the Wealth Program”?

Now, while Bill Still did not write the entire documentary, he did contribute a substantial amount of work toward it and gave his seal of approval to its content. To give you an idea about what Huey P. Long’s Share the Wealth Program [a type of New Deal] was all about here are some of the ideas given in Long’s speech on the Floor of Senate in 1934:

1. To limit poverty by providing that every deserving family would share in the wealth of America.

2. To limit fortunes to a few million dollars so that the rest of the American people could share in the wealth and profits of the land.

3. To provide old-age pensions to persons over 60 who did not earn over a certain amount, or who possessed less than $10,000 in cash or property.

4. To limit the hours of work to such a degree that overproduction could be prevented, and workers could enjoy some of the recreations, conveniences, and luxuries of life.

5. To balance agricultural production with what could be sold and consumed.
[*To balance the problem of unemployment caused by limited agricultural production, farmers would complete public works projects during times when they were not required to produce farm products.]

6. To care for the veterans of our wars.

7. To acquire the tax dollars for running the government by reducing big fortunes. 

Any of that sound familiar? Well, also in the documentary that Bill Still assisted in producing were some other little tid-bits of information that might, or should, call into question the motives behind all of the Still productions.

There are several things that make me question Bill Still and his motives, there are several things within Bill Still’s documentaries which are not accurate or, in many cases simply untrue. He appears to propagate these myths, misconceptions and falsehoods mingled with some truth, but to swallow his stuff whole without chewing it first is not very wise.

Now, you have mentioned perhaps one of the greatest misconceptions about money in your first paragraph and that is that money must be plentiful or the people will be poor. That completely contradicts the function of money within an economy. The utility of money is not in the quantity, but the quality of that money and the productive creation of capital through the exchange within the market. David Hume proved that fact 300 years ago. The idea that it is the quantity of money that makes people wealthy denotes a complete lack of understanding of how money functions within an economy. For instance, Hume demonstrated, after decades of research, that if you doubled the amount of money within everyone’s possession overnight, then for a short time everyone would feel wealthier however, as the economic reality of the increase of money moved through the market, there would be an adjustment in prices to meet the increase of the supply of money. Likewise, if there is a decrease in the amount of money in circulation, the economic market will eventually adjust itself through downward pricing pressure, making the purchase value of the currency increase. The market, without intervention from government, which by the way will always incorporate the patronage of corporatism if allowed, will always adjust itself to the supply of money through either inflation or deflation.

There is an optimal supply of money and the market determines it as the purchase value of the currency remains relatively stable. This country saw such stability for most of the 18th Century [excluding the period between 1860 to the 1870s] until the advent of the Federal Reserve System and its imposition of fiat money in 1913, then again with FDR in 1934 when the U. S. Fiat Notes were depreciated and then again when the total fiat system was forced upon the American People in 1971 by Nixon. If you look at the rate of inflation or deflation during the periods prior to 1913, you will note one striking characteristic…general stability. The rate of inflation was virtually flat, so to was the rate of debt accumulation. There is a direct correlation between fiat currencies and debt accumulation, it cannot be contained under a system where the government, or some government sanctioned chartered agency, like the FED, is allowed to control the supply of money.

Again, wealth creation is not made through the quantity of money in circulation within the economy, nor for that matter is poverty made by the lack of money in circulation within the economy because money is not a static utility. It is the fungibility of money as a medium of exchange that assist in the creation of wealth and prosperity. One thing is certain, fiat money always, without exception, lends itself to the manipulation of both government and those who are highly connection to government power.

The crux of the matter is that Bill Still, like Ellen Brown and Mike Montagne are all believers in the State and the power of the State to produce, control and disseminate fiat money...essentially, their system would be absolutely no different than the current system. While they all claim that this would eliminate or restrict government debt, just the opposite it true, debt would still accumulate through the same type of government bond market that produces debt currently. Even if the Federal Reserve System is removed and the "power to create money" is left entirely up to Congress, as they suggest, the Congress would have to continue with a mechanism to impute value to the fiat money in the market, that system would essentially be the very same as we now have today, which is a government issuance of bonds to back and borrow.

As of yet, not one of these anti-gold/pro-State proponents have provided a mechanism to provide a direct issue of fiat currency by government with valuation. They simply say that it is the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government that would back it, hogwash...that does not impute value to a currency. The reason that any previous notes issued by the U.S. Treasury were backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government was they were "warehouse receipts" with gold/silver assets backing them. When that was eliminated the government had to back them with some imputation of value and that was an artificial government bond market created for that purpose.

BEWARE OF THOSE ADVOCATING WHAT BILL STILL, ELLEN BROWN AND MIKE MONTAGNE ARE ADVOCATING. I am amazed that there are those on the DP who fall for such positions, but obviously they do.

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