2008 capitalism died: Money Scam, cornerstone of our slavery

[Andrew.]

Hence, we are absolutely, hopelessly dependent on total indebtedness being perpetually increased.

We are absolutely, hopelessly dependent on banks injecting bank credit (by giving new loans) into the economy.

If, as now, the banks stop injecting credit into the economy (i.e. if no new loans are given), as the old loans get paid back money gets 'un-created' and the money supply contracts.

As the money supply contracts, there's less money around to be earned, and the borrowers have to compete for a smaller and smaller pie of money (remember, apart from the principal they also need to repay interest).

A deflationary spiral occurs: people postpone buying (as prices are falling), foreclosures and bankruptcies occur at increasing rates, and social upheaval follows.

Well put.
Does Darling Alistair grasp any of this?

There's only one answer then "The year of release" Release all debts and start afresh. These debts are only theft any way. 95% gainers 5% losers who are *millionaires who would still be amply provided for as would every one if we put the Laws back.


(edit) *multi billionaires or multi trillionaires.

[acrobat74]

Does Darling Alistair grasp any of this?

Of course he does. All people in positions of power in finance understand all this very well, as does a good deal of people in related professions.

However, the general public is more ignorant than one would have hoped I believe.

The global financial system is so interwoven these days that, in order to push monetary reform through, one would need to take on the international bankers and their associated interests on a global scale.

Since this is the heart of the beast, we're talking about taking on the entire establishment, globally.

'We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years....It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during these years....The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers ... is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in the past centuries.'"

Most high-flying politicians are closely linked either to the banking or to the intellectual elite and the ownership classes. It is therefore in their interest that the status quo continues.
Meaningful reform could only be initiated by concerned, well-informed citizens.

As Lord Acton wrote:
"The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks."
Lord Acton (1834-1902) English historian

[Andrew.]

Deleted dual post

[Andrew.]

"Meaningful reform could only be initiated by concerned, well-informed citizens."

Take a look around at all the money reform sites, even the genuine ones. And you will soon see that they dont even understand true economics.

prosperityuk.com/prosperity/articles/faq.html

OBJECTION NUMBER 6: "Don't you know that Karl Marx believed in 'Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.' (Chapter 2, The Communist Manifesto) Your proposal will simply centralise all financial power, as Karl Marx wanted."
ANSWER NUMBER 6: Nobody is saying we "centralise all credit"!

We are simply calling for a greater proportion of our money supply to be created debt-free by a democratically accountable public body, and spent, not lent, into society.

Moreover, Money Reformers still see a role for the private banking system.

Publicly-created money is not a "left-wing" idea, nor is it a "right-wing" idea. It is intended to help democratise - not centralise - economic power.

Anyway, Marx did not challenge the debt-based money system, nor advocate debt-free money. His proposals were being made within the conventional economic system.

"and spent not lent into society", Should that not be given into society not lent, rather than spent, as it's only a medium for exchange to facilitate trade, like below.

:“SO, WHAT IS MONEY? http://www.prosperityuk.com/prosperity/ ... rityuk.com /prosperity/articles/m
Money is simply the medium we use to exchange goods and services. Without it, buying and selling would be impossible except, of course, by direct barter exchange.

Notes and coins are virtually worthless in their own right. They take on value only because people accept them, in exchange for goods and services. All the money in the world is useless in the middle of a barren desert.

To keep trade and economic activity functioning, there has to be enough of this medium of exchange called money in existence to allow economic activity to take place.

Hence the importance of ensuring that there is sufficient money in the economy to facilitate the exchange of goods and services, and hence the crucial importance that the creators of this money are under the direct control of the very people who need it to survive. That's you and me.”

Also

Tax at 10% is ample for government admin, for example.

9 people produce goods to the value of £100 they pay 10% they then have £90 left to spend into the economy for their needs. The tenth person who is not producing as such being involved with admin has also £90.

If we have as we do now with 25% income tax VAT and many other indirect taxes to many to list. Probably over 50% tax we can see how it sets up that control matrix.Thats 1 amount of produce to 1 admin Matrix (Beast) in the hands of a few. Without even looking at other forms of Usury, fractional reserve lending and interest ect.

I haven’t included in this example the people who cannot work,*other than given into the economy (the young the old the injured ect the neediest people which is of great importance) and how they are provided for just to keep the example short.

*Which is not money for nothing as some people claim.

Tax alone:
9 people produce goods to the value of £100 they pay 50% tax; they then have £50 left to spend into the economy for their needs. The tenth person who is not producing as such being involved with admin now has 9 x £50 = £450. They keep just £50 leaving £400 to the state. With only 100 people that would be 90 x £400 = £36,000 to the state.

With just 1000 people that would be 900 x £400 = £360,000 to the state.

[acrobat74]

Your claim about 'money reform sites not understanding economics' is entirely without merit and unproven.

The point the reformers are making in your example is that money is spent into the economy, rather than lent at interest.


I will demonstrate with an example:

Imagine a situation where the government wants to expand the money supply to avoid a deflationary spiral (as it so desperately does right now).

To accomplish that, the government spends money directly into the economy and unleashes a huge public works program for the benefit of the public. At zero cost.

That's what would happen in a reformed monetary system in which the additional money that is required is spent, rather than lent, into the economy.

What the government is obliged to do under the current system is to get the central bank (BoE) to buy gilts (government bonds):

The government (that is, the public) will need to pay principal plus interest on these bonds. Nevertheless, the government is compelled to go deeper into debt in order to substitute...yes, you guessed it right: debt.


And you could guess again quite easily the names of the banking institutions that underwrite government debt. They're mentioned throughout this thread. They tend to employ former prime ministers with six-figure salaries for 'consultancy' services.


"There is nothing left now for us but to get ever deeper and deeper into debt to the banking system in order to provide the increasing amounts of money the nation requires for its expansion and growth.

Our money system is nothing better than a confidence trick...

The "money power" which has been able to overshadow ostensibly responsible government is not the power of the merely ultra-rich but is nothing more or less than a new technique to destroy money by adding and withdrawing figures in bank ledgers, without the slightest concern for the interests of the community or the real role money ought to perform therein...

to allow it to become a source of revenue to private issuer's is to create, first, a secret and illicit arm of government and, last, a rival power strong enough to ultimately overthrow all other forms of government.

...An honest money system is the only alternative."

Dr. Frederick Soddy, Nobelist
author of Wealth, Virtual Wealth & Debt


As for the rest of your post, I have absolutely no clue what you're trying to say.

[Andrew.]

Your claim about 'money reform sites not understanding economics' is entirely without merit and unproven.

The point the reformers are making in your example is that money is spent into the economy, rather than lent at interest.


I will demonstrate with an example:

Imagine a situation where the government wants to expand the money supply to avoid a deflationary spiral (as it so desperately does right now).

To accomplish that, the government spends money directly into the economy and unleashes a huge public works program for the benefit of the public. At zero cost.

That's what would happen in a reformed monetary system in which the additional money that is required is spent, rather than lent, into the economy.

What the government is obliged to do under the current system is to get the central bank (BoE) to buy gilts (government bonds):

The government (that is, the public) is compelled to go deeper into debt (as it will need to pay principal plus interest on these bonds) in order to substitute...yes, you guessed right: debt.


As for the rest of your post, I have absolutely no clue what you're trying to say.

Hi,acrobat74

The point is that if it is ''spent'' into the economy it is the same as it is now, decided by a few at the top.

Money should only be a medium for exchange.

The point about the Tax is the same. Other than other forms of Usury.

Also on that video and the web site in my previous post is what they have missed is ''debt release'' and also if the money supply (medium for exchange) is proxy to goods there is no inflation or deflation. So for example a handful of gold would buy a home and keep its value at that and never change. Therefore you would not need much gold, silver to provide that means of exchange and because it is relatively rare it would act as a barrier to the debt mountain we have now.

This is without going into other areas to keep it short.

[item7]

Our money system is nothing better than a confidence trick...

Says it all!

But of course the answer is to let the monsters who have engineered this mess create a WORLD currency then everything will be fine. Get your Climate Change credits from them and they will fix all the world's woes. They sell a tasty brand of snake oil as well.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... p9VoPeHquI

UN Says New Currency Is Needed to Fix Broken ‘Confidence Game’

By Jonathan Tirone

Sept. 7 (Bloomberg) -- The dollar’s role in international trade should be reduced by establishing a new currency to protect emerging markets from the “confidence game” of financial speculation, the United Nations said.

UN countries should agree on the creation of a global reserve bank to issue the currency and to monitor the national exchange rates of its members, the Geneva-based UN Conference on Trade and Development said today in a report.

China, India, Brazil and Russia this year called for a replacement to the dollar as the main reserve currency after the financial crisis sparked by the collapse of the U.S. mortgage market led to the worst global recession since World War II. China, the world’s largest holder of dollar reserves, said a supranational currency such as the International Monetary Fund’s special drawing rights, or SDRs, may add stability.

“There’s a much better chance of achieving a stable pattern of exchange rates in a multilaterally-agreed framework for exchange-rate management,” Heiner Flassbeck, co-author of the report and a UNCTAD director, said in an interview from Geneva. “An initiative equivalent to Bretton Woods or the European Monetary System is needed.”

The 1944 Bretton Woods agreement created the modern global economic system and institutions including the IMF and World Bank.

Enhanced SDRs

While it would be desirable to strengthen SDRs, a unit of account based on a basket of currencies, it wouldn’t be enough to aid emerging markets most in need of liquidity, said Flassbeck, a former German deputy finance minister who worked in 1997-1998 with then U.S. Deputy Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers to contain the Asian financial crisis.

Emerging-market countries are underrepresented at the IMF, hindering the effectiveness of enhanced SDR allocations, the UN said. An organization should be created to manage real exchange rates between countries measured by purchasing power and adjusted to inflation differentials and development levels, it said.

“The most important lesson of the global crisis is that financial markets don’t get prices right,” Flassbeck said. “Governments are being tempted by the resulting confidence game catering to financial-market participants who have shown they’re inept at assessing risk.”

The 45-year-old UN group, run by former World Trade Organization chief Supachai Panitchpakdi, “promotes integration of developing countries in the world economy,” according to its Web site. Emerging-market nations should consider restricting capital mobility until a new system is in place, the group said.

The world body began issuing warnings in 2006 about financial imbalances leading to a global recession.

The UN Trade and Development report is being held for release via print media until 6 p.m. London time.

To contact the reporters on this story: Jonathan Tirone in Vienna at jtirone@bloomberg.net

Interesting article and debate here:- http://webofdebt.wordpress.com/more-tha ... t-28-2009/

An Open Letter to the American Monetary Institute

MORE THAN ONE WAY TO RECLAIM THE POWER TO CREATE MONEY, August 28, 2009

Sirs: This is in response to the entry posted on your American Monetary Institute blog on August 16, 2009, which references my articles on a state-owned bank solution to the credit crisis. I was disappointed to read that you thought my proposal was “an insult to humanity,” as the idea was actually drawn from the AMI’s book The Lost Science of Money. I do quite a bit of writing and speaking, and I always follow your lead in saying the ideal monetary model is that established in Benjamin Franklin’s colony of Pennsylvania, which not only spent but lent money into the economy, through its own publicly-owned bank. The Lost Science of Money calls it “Pennsylvania’s Superior Money System.” On pages 370-71, your book quotes Pennsylvania Governor William Keith, who wrote of the province’s founding of a publicly-owned bank: .......

[Andrew.]

''Benjamin Franklin’s colony of Pennsylvania, which not only spent but lent money into the economy, through its own publicly-owned bank. The Lost Science of Money calls it “Pennsylvania’s Superior Money System.” On pages 370-71, your book quotes Pennsylvania Governor William Keith, who wrote of the province’s founding of a publicly-owned bank:''

.......http://www.kamron.com/Liberty/colonial_script.htm


Colonial script was not spent into the economy it was issued, given,just to facilitate exchange of goods for the people without inflation or deflation. But this system although much better does not go far enough. Hence where we have come today.

[Andrew.]

http://webofdebt.wordpress.com/more-tha ... t-28-2009/

Bill Still of "The Money Masters" fame is now on this debate ?

______________

"Bill Still, on September 9th, 2009 at 11:29 am Said:

Sir,
Excuse me for butting in here, but this I’m the Director of the new documentary on precisely this problem, “The Secret of Oz”. http://www.secretofOz.com

This film was scheduled to play yesterday — Tuesday, Sept. 8 — at the Film Festival of Ireland in Tipperary. Fed-Ex messed up and didn’t deliver it on time, so I’m hoping it will be rescheduled today — or sometime.

In any case, I’ll go on this blog and weigh in.
Bill Still"

--------

"Bill Still, on September 9th, 2009 at 3:37 am Said:

Excuse me for being boastful, but I’m just so happy to have won something for a monetary reform film. This helps us all out.

The Secret of Oz has just won the Silver Sierra Award for Filmmaking from the 2009 Yosemite Film Festival in Yosemite, California. I will be there to accept it at their Award Ceremony on Oct. 24th."

[Andrew.]

Better but not right.

Oz Economics
E-mail Print PDF

http://www.secretofoz.com/index.php?opt ... &Itemid=74

How important is this issue worldwide? Having private banks create money is the root cause of all world poverty, hunger, disease and misery. And until we fix it, we will never be able to make a dent in these other issues.

We can fix this. We can fix it in a matter of months -- a year at most. We can make our government the most financially sound in the world -- nearly overnight. The government can loan out all the money any state needs to build roads or schools or hospitals – interest free. Approximately half of a state’s infrastructure cost is from interest on borrowed money! When the money is repaid by the states it will all come back to the federal government, preventing inflation. All we have to do is to take back the power to control the quantity of money and put that power into the hands of the federal officials closest to the voting public -- namely the Congress of the United States.

Some say, “Well, those crooks in Congress will create too much money once they get the money power.” But Congress now “creates” all the money it wants! It just creates it as DEBT, which never gets paid back, and which we the people have to continually pay interest on. Instead of creating bonds -- or debt -- the government could and should be creating DOLLARS, interest-free.

More money for people.

Others will say Congress isn’t responsive to the people as it is.

Well of course not. Politicians are responsive to those with the power. Right now, the banks have the power. We have to take back the ultimate power of any nation – the power over its money. With the power of banks diminished, politicians will become responsive to the voters once again.

Do you know that only one zip code in this country provides nearly half of all the lobbying money to Congress? Guess what that zip code is? It’s 10036, the upper east side of Manhattan – the Golden Ghetto. That’s where the Mayor of New York lives. That’s where the Wall Street bankers live. They control the money, they control Congress.

Some will say that these solutions are something radical like socialism or worse. They are not. This is the most basic historic struggle for human freedom running back to the beginnings of time.

If we value the Founding Father’s dream of freedom -- an escape from serfdom by political self-determination --we have to conclude that creating our money is too important a function to be put into private hands. History has shown time and time again that that leads to nothing but plutocracy – rule by the rich – and ultimately slavery.

This privately-owned debt-money system has gotten so far out of control at this point that probably only a Biblical Jubilee year will save civilization from collapse.

Imagine in your own world. What if tomorrow you were told that all your mortgage debt and credit card debt was cancelled. That would certainly be more money for people, less money for banks. After the Jubilee, then we could take the money power away from the banks and change the Constitution to put it permanently into the hands of Congress.

But what about the banks? They are already failing? Let them fail. Government can issue it’s own money and credit. We don’t need their hyper-expensive compounding interest system. Banks or banking won’t go away. Everyone will still need loans and checking accounts. Some one will step in and provide those services. You’ll still go down to your corner bank to deposit your check. Your bank will still be there. Only the guts – the bank’s accounting system – the part you never see anyway – will change.

Jesus chased the moneychangers from the temple in his day. We should certainly do the same in our day.

Is that fair? Come on, big banks already own every large building in every city in the world. That should be sufficient! Let the people of the world have some money for a change. Give us some incentive to build a better world.

There is hope, especially here in America. History has shown that America has fought to create it’s own money for the last 300 years. In fact, in no other nation on earth has the population fought for it as successfully and with such determination over the centuries as America. All we need in the face of this oncoming first depression of the 21st century is a little education. We can make this the new civil rights movement – the new human rights movement. The big bankers now stand more exposed than ever before. Let’s use history to guide our path today.

This hasn’t been an issue since the time L. Frank Baum wrote the Wonderful Wizard of Oz. Why? Because after the William Jennings Bryan era, the bankers learned that in order to put the lid on this issue they had to buy up the nation’s press. And they did. But this won’t work in the Internet age. Television commentators are now asking just what is the Federal Reserve and where does their money come from? The answer is they make the money up out of thin air and then have the audacity to loan it to us. The interest that the government has to pay is where our income taxes go. That was the deal the Fed made with the government when the Federal Reserve Act was rammed through Congress on Dec. 23, 1913.
And what about the principal? The principle is never repaid, but the interest just keeps compounding. And it’s that interest that’s killing us. We’ll never be able to repay it. No nation ever has been able to do so – except for President Jackson in 1836.

[acrobat74]

As discussed above, we are absolutely dependent on indebtedness being perpetually increased or the entire monetary system collapses.

Faced with this situation, and lacking the political will to change the system itself, all governments can do when banks, for whatever reason, don't want to extend loans, is to prop up the banks with taxpayer money so that banks can start giving loans again and indebtedness (also referred to as 'liquidity') can once again increase.

If governments don't do that, a large chunk of the existing money supply (=debt pool) will simply evaporate as huge amounts of bad debts are written off and a mighty recession will take hold.

Let's make it clear: there is no other cure in the current system apart from 'more debt to replace debt'.

All this using our future taxes of course.

As a result, taxes will rise, public services will suffer (this is a question of 'when', not 'if') and governments will go deeper and deeper into debt for years to come.

This is the reality of our situation and of our monetary and political landscape.


Here's a nice video with Elliot Spitzer:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAtSmR7Z-Kg[/youtube]

The Federal Reserve — the quasi-autonomous body that controls the US’s money supply — is a “Ponzi scheme” that created “bubble after bubble” in the US economy and needs to be held accountable for its actions, says Eliot Spitzer, the former governor and attorney-general of New York.

In a wide-ranging discussion of the bank bailouts on MSNBC’s Morning Meeting, host Dylan Ratigan described the process by which the Federal Reserve exchanged $13.9 trillion of bad bank debt for cash that it gave to the struggling banks.

Spitzer — who built a reputation as “the Sheriff of Wall Street” for his zealous prosecutions of corporate crime as New York’s attorney-general and then resigned as the state’s governor over revelations he had paid for prostitutes — seemed to agree with Ratigan that the bank bailout amounts to “America’s greatest theft and cover-up ever.”

Advocating in favor of a House bill to audit the Federal Reserve, Spitzer said: “The Federal Reserve has benefited for decades from the notion that it is quasi-autonomous, it’s supposed to be independent. Let me tell you a dirty secret: The Fed has done an absolutely disastrous job since [former Fed Chairman] Paul Volcker left.

“The reality is the Fed has blown it. Time and time again, they blew it. Bubble after bubble, they failed to understand what they were doing to the economy.

“The most poignant example for me is the AIG bailout, where they gave tens of billions of dollars that went right through — conduit payments — to the investment banks that are now solvent. We [taxpayers] didn’t get stock in those banks, they didn’t ask what was going on — this begs and cries out for hard, tough examination.

“You look at the governing structure of the New York [Federal Reserve], it was run by the very banks that got the money. This is a Ponzi scheme, an inside job. It is outrageous, it is time for Congress to say enough of this. And to give them more power now is crazy.

“The Fed needs to be examined carefully.”

Spitzer resigned as governor of New York in March, 2008, after news reports stated he had paid for a $1,000-an-hour New York City call girl.

At the time, Spitzer had been raising the alarm about sub-prime mortgages. In the wake of the economic meltdown triggered last fall by sub-prime loans, some observers have suggested that Spitzer may have been targeted by law enforcement because of his high-profile opposition to Wall Street financial policies.

Investigative reporter Greg Palast wrote that federal agents’ revealing of Spitzer’s identity as a call-girl customer was no coincidence.

Palast wrote that the principle of “prosecutorial discretion” is often used to keep the names of high-profile persons out of the media when they are tangentially linked to a criminal investigation. In the case of Spitzer, the Justice Department chose not to invoke prosecutorial discretion.

Funny thing, this ‘discretion.’ For example, Senator David Vitter, Republican of Louisiana, paid Washington DC prostitutes to put him in diapers (ewww!), yet the Senator was not exposed by the US prosecutors busting the pimp-ring that pampered him.
Naming and shaming and ruining Spitzer – rarely done in these cases - was made at the ‘discretion’ of Bush’s Justice Department.
Spitzer recently told Bloomberg News that President Obama’s regulatory reforms of the financial sector are “irrelevant” because regulatory agencies have not been enforcing corporate laws to begin with.

“Regulatory agencies already had the power to do everything they needed to do,” he said. “They just affirmatively chose not to do it.”

– Daniel Tencer

(posted here: http://www.underthecarpet.co.uk/Pages/N ... p?num=6528)

[Andrew.]

''Let's make it clear: there is no other cure in the current system apart from 'more debt to replace debt'.''

Lets make it clear that is not the answer you keep repeating.


http://z6.invisionfree.com/Bill_Still_R ... owtopic=39

“Over the years, I've gradually -- and grudgingly -- had to face the impossibility of meaningful monetary reform coming to fruition at the federal level as a first step.”

I agree there is a problem with enough people getting behind monetary reform.

I rather liked this quote.

“This privately-owned debt-money system has gotten so far out of control at this point that probably only a Biblical Jubilee year will save civilization from collapse.
Imagine in your own world. What if tomorrow you were told that all your mortgage debt and credit card debt was cancelled. That would certainly be more money for people, less money for banks. After the Jubilee, then we could take the money power away from the banks and change the Constitution to put it permanently into the hands of Congress.”

And I thought of the year of release (Every 7 years) of all money debts, principle amounts included. Designed to encourage people to work together and also so it doesn’t collapse in on itself like communism, where many people want the money but not the work, not that there is much to do really in a good economic system and also to give people a system worthwhile grafting into and so it doesn’t run away into corruption. A system of exchange that stands proxy to goods victuals (No inflation or deflation) that every creature has its share of the fruit of the land. With a full correction every 50 years much of it to do with the seasons a good diet and more: (Just to keep an explanation short)


“Divided as fairly as possible so that EVERY family should receive its portion. The land was free from debt and the only tax was a tenth part of the fruit of the soil, the tithe being the inheritance of the Levites, who, being engaged in work of national importance, had no land.

[We know from history ect the Levites became corrupt and took for themselves alone.
Hence 600 years later. As the one and only Rabbi, Priest ect.]

“Jesus chased the moneychangers from the temple in his day. We should certainly do the same in our day.”

The land was inherited, free of death duties, from generation to generation. It had no money value, and must not be sold for ever. The possessors of the land were regarded, not as the owners (for the land was God’s, Leviticus 25:23), but as God’s guests.

Should circumstances compel, it was permitted to sell the land, but the price should be adjusted according to the number of years to the Jubilee. The price was not for the land itself, but for its produce. In the fiftieth, the Year of Jubilee, every family must return to its inheritance.” Portion of land ect.


Andrew

------

Bill Still
Posted: Sep 11 2009, 11:08 PM

Thanks Andrew,
You have it exactly.
It's nice to see folks like you really get this.

[acrobat74]

''Let's make it clear: there is no other cure in the current system apart from 'more debt to replace debt'.''

Lets make it clear that is not the answer you keep repeating.

Erm sorry not following, clarify please?

Maybe I should have written that there are solutions even in the current system, but they are completely unpalatable politically as they involve a lot of pain.
They are typically advocated by Austrian economists or conservatives and involve allowing the money supply to deflate so that the supply and demand for credit reach a new (lower) equilibrium.
Our modern economies have been run almost entirely on debt for quite a while though, so you can see how this kind of remedy would cause lots of pain to lots of voters.

Bill Still's a good guy, thanks for the various links.

[Andrew.]

acrobat74 wrote:
“Erm sorry not following, clarify please?”

“acrobat74
Posted: Sun Sep 06, 2009 11:28 am
So why is all this so important?
Well, without debt, there would be no money.”

“acrobat74
Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2009 6:43 pm
As discussed above, we are absolutely dependent on indebtedness being perpetually increased or the entire monetary system collapses.

acrobat74 wrote:
''Let's make it clear: there is no other cure in the current system apart from 'more debt to replace debt'.''

Andrew wrote:
Lets make it clear that is not the answer you keep repeating.


http://z6.invisionfree.com/Bill_Still_R ... owtopic=39


Bill Wrote:
“Over the years, I've gradually -- and grudgingly -- had to face the impossibility of meaningful monetary reform coming to fruition at the federal level as a first step.”

Andrew wrote:
I agree there is a problem with enough people getting behind monetary reform.

I rather liked this quote.

Bill wrote:
“This privately-owned debt-money system has gotten so far out of control at this point that probably only a Biblical Jubilee year will save civilization from collapse.
Imagine in your own world. What if tomorrow you were told that all your mortgage debt and credit card debt was cancelled. That would certainly be more money for people, less money for banks. After the Jubilee, then we could take the money power away from the banks and change the Constitution to put it permanently into the hands of Congress.”


Andrew wrote:
And I thought of the year of release (Every 7 years) of all money debts, principle amounts included. Designed to encourage people to work together and also so it doesn’t collapse in on itself like communism, where many people want the money but not the work, not that there is much to do really in a good economic system and also to give people a system worthwhile grafting into and so it doesn’t run away into corruption. A system of exchange that stands proxy to goods victuals (No inflation or deflation) that every creature has its share of the fruit of the land. With a full correction every 50 years much of it to do with the seasons a good diet and more: (Just to keep an explanation short)


“Divided as fairly as possible so that EVERY family should receive its portion. The land was free from debt and the only tax was a tenth part of the fruit of the soil, the tithe being the inheritance of the Levites, who, being engaged in work of national importance, had no land.

[We know from history ect the Levites became corrupt and took for themselves alone.
Hence 600 years later. As the one and only Rabbi, Priest ect.]

Bill wrote:
“Jesus chased the moneychangers from the temple in his day. We should certainly do the same in our day.”

Andrew wrote:
The land was inherited, free of death duties, from generation to generation. It had no money value, and must not be sold for ever. The possessors of the land were regarded, not as the owners (for the land was God’s, Leviticus 25:23), but as God’s guests.

Should circumstances compel, it was permitted to sell the land, but the price should be adjusted according to the number of years to the Jubilee. The price was not for the land itself, but for its produce. In the fiftieth, the Year of Jubilee, every family must return to its inheritance.” Portion of land ect.


Andrew

------

Bill Still
Posted: Sep 11 2009, 11:08 PM

Thanks Andrew,
You have it exactly.
It's nice to see folks like you really get this.

[acrobat74]

Still a bit slow in gathering your point I'm afraid.

In any case, what I'm trying to point out is the absolute hopelessness of the current system.
Hence, monetary reform should be the top item in the politicians' agenda. If only...

[Andrew.]

Still a bit slow in gathering your point I'm afraid.

In any case, what I'm trying to point out is the absolute hopelessness of the current system.
Hence, monetary reform should be the top item in the politicians' agenda. If only...

Then we will have to force the hand of the politicians. It’s supposed to be the government serving the people not the people serving the government and their paymasters.

[item7]

http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=7343

Gerald Celente: What's next for America? Revolution!

Ten minute video. Its bad bad bad .... and getting worse. The revolution is coming!

[scubadiver]

Not sure if this link has been posted anywhere else

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJqM2tFOxLQ[/youtube]

[acrobat74]

Good video, thanks scubadiver.
Apparently the investigator general of the Fed is a bit behind the curve here.


It's interesting to note that we're reaching an interesting point in the debate, which, in my mind at least, is the fundamental unsolved problem of organization: who regulates the regulator?

Money reformers say 'take the money creation power away from banks, it belongs to the people'. So the view is for government to take control of this process and to spend debt-free money into circulation.

But these are the same governments that have been giving us all the imperial conquests and false flag attacks throughout history.
Indeed, the ideological blueprint for totalitarian imperialism goes back to Plato's 'noble lies' and 'philosopher kings'.

The point is: why would one trust the governments to serve the common good?

On the other hand you'd get the free-market libertarians (not to be confused with the crony capitalists), who would oppose government intervention (Bill Still & Ron Paul would be on this side). This side of the debate would want the market to decide freely on which means of exchange to use. Would this really be a solution though?

[item7]

http://www.examiner.com/x-18425-LA-Coun ... s-Edison-1

Top 10 Americans for monetary reform: Thomas Edison #1
September 19, 10:34 AMLA County Nonpartisan Examiner Carl Herman

From time-to-time I’ll remind you that the financial crisis in America today could be over almost instantaneously through monetary reform. Monetary reform is a fundamental shift in how American creates money. The shift is from the Robber Baron-era design of banks creating credit to lend to us at interest and ever-increasing debt, to our community (government) creating it for the direct payment of public goods and services. The benefits of monetary reform are conservatively $1 TRILLION every year, the end of the national debt, and full employment.

Please review the links above to fully understand this idea.

The power of monetary reform is evident in history. Napoleonic France quickly became the world’s leading economy and Paris its most beautiful city after ten years of violent revolution that killed or drove-off their economic leadership. Nazi Germany overcame tragic-comic hyperinflation to become the model economy during the Great Depression. These nations were in worse economic conditions than America today (economic power needs to be invested in the public good, not for empire).

This top 10 list of Americans who understood monetary reform deserve your attention. Given our economic condition, you literally have nothing more valuable for your attention.

Thomas Edison (1847-1931) held over 1,000 US patents for his inventions and is considered among the most brilliant minds in American history. Edison understood the engineering of our monetary system and actively spoke for monetary reform. The following seven paragraphs are from an interview with the New York Times in 1921 from a publicity tour Edison took with his friend and fellow inventor Henry Ford to discuss monetary reform at a potential site for a hydroelectric dam at Muscle Shoals, Alabama. He discusses with the reporter how the US government should directly create the money for this public good.

As always, please share this article with all who say they want to be a competent citizen. If you appreciate my work, please subscribe by clicking under the article title (it’s free). Feel free to browse at leisure through my complete titles here.

"That is to say, under the old way any time we wish to add to the national wealth we are compelled to add to the national debt. Now, that is what Henry Ford wants to prevent. He thinks it is stupid, and so do I, that for the loan of $30,000,000 of their own money the people of the United States should be compelled to pay $66,000,000 -- that is what it amounts to, with interest. People who will not turn a shovelful of dirt nor contribute a pound of material will collect more money from the United States than will the people who supply the material and do the work. That is the terrible thing about interest. In all our great bond issues the interest is always greater than the principal. All of the great public works cost more than twice the actual cost, on that account. Under the present system of doing business we simply add 120 to 150 per cent, to the stated cost.

But here is the point: If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good. The difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets the money brokers collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20 per cent, whereas the currency pays nobody but those who directly contribute to Muscle Shoals in some useful way.

... if the Government issues currency, it provides itself with enough money to increase the national wealth at Muscles Shoals without disturbing the business of the rest of the country. And in doing this it increases its income without adding a penny to its debt.

It is absurd to say that our country can issue $30,000,000 in bonds and not $30,000,000 in currency. Both are promises to pay; but one promise fattens the usurer, and the other helps the people. If the currency issued by the Government were no good, then the bonds issued would be no good either. It is a terrible situation when the Government, to increase the national wealth, must go into debt and submit to ruinous interest charges at the hands of men who control the fictitious values of gold.

Look at it another way. If the Government issues bonds, the brokers will sell them. The bonds will be negotiable; they will be considered as gilt edged paper. Why? Because the government is behind them, but who is behind the Government? The people. Therefore it is the people who constitute the basis of Government credit. Why then cannot the people have the benefit of their own gilt-edged credit by receiving non-interest bearing currency on Muscle Shoals, instead of the bankers receiving the benefit of the people's credit in interest-bearing bonds?

Certainly there is a complete set of misleading slogans kept on hand for just such outbreaks of common sense among the people. The people are so ignorant of what they think are the intricacies of the money system that they are easily impressed by big words. There would be new shrieks of ‘fiat money,’ and ‘paper money’ and ‘green-backism,’ and all the rest of it – the same old cries with which the people have been shouted down from the beginning.

But maybe we have passed beyond the time when the thoughtful 2 per cent – you know, I gather from my questionnaire that only 2 per cent of the people think,” and Mr. Edison smiled broadly. “Maybe they can’t shout down American thinkers any longer. The only dynamite that works in this country is the dynamite of a sound idea. I think we are getting a sound idea on the money question. The people have an instinct which tells them that something is wrong, and that the wrong somehow centers in money. They have an instinct, also, which tells them when a proposal is made in their interests or against them.”

[acrobat74]

"That is to say, under the old way any time we wish to add to the national wealth we are compelled to add to the national debt. Now, that is what Henry Ford wants to prevent. He thinks it is stupid, and so do I, that for the loan of $30,000,000 of their own money the people of the United States should be compelled to pay $66,000,000 -- that is what it amounts to, with interest. People who will not turn a shovelful of dirt nor contribute a pound of material will collect more money from the United States than will the people who supply the material and do the work. That is the terrible thing about interest. In all our great bond issues the interest is always greater than the principal. All of the great public works cost more than twice the actual cost, on that account. Under the present system of doing business we simply add 120 to 150 per cent, to the stated cost.

But here is the point: If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good. The difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets the money brokers collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20 per cent, whereas the currency pays nobody but those who directly contribute to Muscle Shoals in some useful way.

... if the Government issues currency, it provides itself with enough money to increase the national wealth at Muscles Shoals without disturbing the business of the rest of the country. And in doing this it increases its income without adding a penny to its debt.

It is absurd to say that our country can issue $30,000,000 in bonds and not $30,000,000 in currency. Both are promises to pay; but one promise fattens the usurer, and the other helps the people. If the currency issued by the Government were no good, then the bonds issued would be no good either. It is a terrible situation when the Government, to increase the national wealth, must go into debt and submit to ruinous interest charges at the hands of men who control the fictitious values of gold.

Look at it another way. If the Government issues bonds, the brokers will sell them. The bonds will be negotiable; they will be considered as gilt edged paper. Why? Because the government is behind them, but who is behind the Government? The people. Therefore it is the people who constitute the basis of Government credit. Why then cannot the people have the benefit of their own gilt-edged credit by receiving non-interest bearing currency on Muscle Shoals, instead of the bankers receiving the benefit of the people's credit in interest-bearing bonds?

Edison is exactly right. Spot on.

But maybe we have passed beyond the time when the thoughtful 2 per cent – you know, I gather from my questionnaire that only 2 per cent of the people think,” and Mr. Edison smiled broadly.

I think this number is just a bit higher actually

“Maybe they can’t shout down American thinkers any longer. The only dynamite that works in this country is the dynamite of a sound idea. I think we are getting a sound idea on the money question. The people have an instinct which tells them that something is wrong, and that the wrong somehow centers in money. They have an instinct, also, which tells them when a proposal is made in their interests or against them.”

Unfortunately, he's been proven wrong on this one.

[acrobat74]

Nassim Nicholas Taleb has been a cutting edge thinker on finance for quite a while now. His viewpoint is empirical scepticism and he belongs to the conservative school of thought. He is widely credited with predicting the current meltdown.

Here's his take on 'banking talent' and personal liability from a session in the US Congress:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QV814EimkkU[/youtube]

[item7]

http://www.house.gov/htbin/blog_inc?BLO ... tail.shtml

The Real Reasons Behind Fed Secrecy

Last week I was very pleased that the Financial Services Committee held a hearing on the Federal Reserve Transparency Act, HR 1207. The bill has 295 cosponsors and there is also strong support for the companion bill in the Senate. This hearing was a major step forward in getting the bill passed.

I was pleased that the hearing was well-attended, especially considering that it was held on a Friday at nine o’clock in the morning! I have been talking about the immense, unchecked power of the Federal Reserve for many years, while the attention of Congress was always on other things. It was gratifying to see my colleagues asking probing questions and demonstrating genuine concern about this important issue as well.

The witness testifying in favor of HR 1207 made some very strong points, which was no surprise considering the bill is simply common sense. It was also no surprise that the witness testifying against the bill had no good arguments as to why a full audit should not be conducted promptly. He attempted to make the case that the fed is already sufficiently accountable to Congress and that the current auditing policy is adequate. The fact is that the Fed comes to Congress and talks about only what it wants to talk about, and the GAO audits only what the current laws allow to be audited. The really important things however, are off limits. There are no convincing arguments that it is in the best interests of the American people for anything the Fed does to be off limits.

It has been argued that full disclosure of details of funding facilities like TALF and PDCF that enabled massive bailouts of Wall Street would damage the financial position of those firms and destabilize the economy. In other words, if the American people knew how rotten the books were at those banks and how terribly they messed up, they would never willingly invest in them, and they would fail. Failure is not an option for friends of the Fed. Therefore, the funds must be stolen from the people in the dark of night. This is not how a free country works. This is not how free markets work. That is crony corporatism and instead of being a force for economic stabilization, it totally undermines it.

If the Fed gave its actual arguments against a full audit, they would not have mentioned anything about political independence or economic stability. Instead they would admit they don’t want to be audited because they enjoy their current situation too much. Under the guise of currency control, they are able to help out powerful allies on Wall Street, in exchange for lucrative jobs or who-knows-what favors later on. An audit would expose the Fed as a massive fraud perpetrated on this country, enriching a privileged few bankers at the top of our economic food chain, and leaving the rest of us with massively devalued dollars which we are forced to use by law. An audit would make people realize that, while Bernie Madoff defrauded a lot of investors for a lot of money, the Fed has defrauded every one of us by destroying the value of our money. An honest and full accounting of how the money system really works in this country would mean there is not much of a chance the American people would stand for it anymore.

Posted by Ron Paul (09-28-2009, 02:00 PM) filed under Monetary Policy

[acrobat74]

From PBS (Bill Moyers Journal):
Excellent, calm, fact-based and pragmatic discussion around the role of banks in the current crisis.

'A financial coup d'etat? I could agree with that'. (Marcy Kaptur, D-OH)

October 9, 2009
Just over a year after economic calamity brought promises of reform from Washington, has Wall Street really changed?
Former International Monetary Fund chief economist Simon Johnson and US Rep. Marcy Kaptur (Democrat-Ohio) report on the state of the economy.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/10092009/watch.html

Also available here:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voFVo9u5DiI[/youtube]

[acrobat74]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009 ... -economics

The British people will pay the cost of the recent financial crisis for a generation, Bank of England Governor Mervyn King warned tonight after figures showed the budget deficit ballooned to record levels in the first half of the fiscal year.

King said the government would have to put the public finances on a more sustainable footing and warned people that they would have to become savers rather than spenders in the years ahead.

"Our national debt is rising rapidly, not least as the consequence of support to the banking system. We shall all be paying for the impact of this crisis on the public finances for a generation," King told business leaders in Edinburgh.

"To paraphrase a great wartime leader, never in the field of financial endeavour has so much money been owed by so few to so many," he added.

[TonyGosling]

How Goldman Sachs Made $3 Billion 12 Months After We Bailed Their Lucky Asses Out
By Roundtable - http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2807/
The question is why did we give the banks billions of our money so they could then buy assets by the trillions with our money and they keep the profits?
The answer is [Council on Foreign Relations member] Henry Paulson, former Goldman Sachs CEO who ran the US Treasury, and [Council on Foreign Relations member] Tim Geithner, current Treasury Secretary who at the time ran the New York Federal Reserve, willingly delivered Goldman Sachs the $70 Billion -- with no strings attached.
Council on Foreign Relations members Giethner, Summers, Paulson, Greenspan, Soros, Dimon, Volcker, Clinton, Bush, Carter and others are now destroying our currency and exporting American jobs overseas.
The CFR has only 3000 members yet they control over three-quarters of the nations wealth. The CFR runs the State Department and the CIA. The CFR has placed 100 CFR members in every Presidential Administration since Woodrow Wilson. They work together to misinform and disinform the President to act in the best interest of the CFR not the best interest of the American People. At least five Presidents (Eisenhower, Ford, Carter, Bush, and Clinton) have been members of the CFR. The CFR has packed every Supreme court with CFR insiders. Three CFR members Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and Sandra Day O'Connor sit or sat on the supreme court. The CFR's British Counterpart is the Royal Institute of International Affairs. The members of these groups profit by creating tension and hate.They create wars then make millions by re-building the infrastructures they have destroyed. They are now destroying the American Dollar to aid CFR managed international corporations increase profits by firing American workers, hire cheap emerging market labor and lower the cost of their products to overseas markets in China and India. Their goal is one world currency, a one world central bank, and one world order under their control.

How Goldman Sachs Made $3 Billion 12 Months After We Bailed Their Lucky Asses Out
http://waronyou.com/topics/how-goldman- ... asses-out/
Dylan Ratigan|Oct. 18, 2009

How did Goldman, Sachs & Co. -- saved a year ago by the US taxpayer -- magically make $3 billion in 3 months a year later?

This as the US dollar collapses, unemployment soars and foreclosures hit a record?

Here is the Goldman, Sachs & Co. revenue break down for the past 3 months:
Financial Advisory-M/A: 325 million.
Equity Underwriting: 363 million.
Debt Underwriting: 211 million.
Trading-Principal Investments: 10 billion.

Notice that 10 billion is much bigger than two or three hundred million made from the traditional Wall Street businesses.

That $10 billion is evidence of their magic trick. For we the taxpayer gave Goldman Sachs the following:
1. $10 Billion in TARP
2. $11 Billion from the Fed
3. $30 Billion from the FDIC
4. $13 Billion from AIG

For a grand total of almost $70 Billion (Goldman along with every other bank and AIG would have been defunct without this money).

Goldman at the apex of the crisis is delivered this money -- which they then use to borrow against at $20 or $30 for every $1. Which at 30x equals $2.1 trillion in available capital.

As one of the only banks in the world with money at the time, Goldman Sachs was able to buy billions in distressed assets around the world at record low prices -- only to watch $23.7 trillion in US taxpayer money be deployed during the past year to re-inflate the asset's values that Goldman had purchased with our tax money.

The question is not why did we bail out the banks.

The question is why did we give the banks billions of our money so they could then buy assets by the trillions with our money and they keep the profits?

The answer is Henry Paulson, former Goldman Sachs CEO who ran the US Treasury, and Tim Geithner, current Treasury Secretary who at the time ran the New York Federal Reserve, willingly delivered Goldman Sachs the $70 Billion -- with no strings attached.

So what can we do?
1. We must demand the return of those investment gains made with America's money - it was stolen from us and we can get it back. Demand Claw Backs - and not from the future but from the past - That is where our money is.
2. We must have an exchange for all credit derivatives -- the current version is riddled with loopholes that let banks avoid transparency by mobbing offshore and prohibiting government regulators from being able to force the use of the exchange by the banks.

So how do you do it?

[item7]

Their goal is one world currency, a one world central bank, and one world order under their control.

Quite. The way to get these things is to fabricate a global problem which requires a global solution which is why we have the "Man-made climate change" scam.

[Andrew.]

Their goal is one world currency, a one world central bank, and one world order under their control.

Quite. The way to get these things is to fabricate a global problem which requires a global solution which is why we have the "Man-made climate change" scam.

Fabricate it? Not enough people would fall for it and it wouldn’t have the desired results that THEY want. That’s why it’s a real problem THEY want. Another excuse for more war and/or dictatorship when people go hungry.

Any way, don’t pay the debt you owe them nothing they owe you the people. You need someone who can show how these Law’s are implemented without panic at the societal level.

[item7]

Fabricate it? Not enough people would fall for it

Is that supposed to be humorous? Millions of people believe any old junk they are told. Take the official version of 9/11 for instance. The reason for going to war with Iraq. The "secret" Iran nuclear project. The Russian attack on Georgia. The list is endless.

[Andrew.]

Fabricate it? Not enough people would fall for it

Is that supposed to be humorous? Millions of people believe any old junk they are told. Take the official version of 9/11 for instance. The reason for going to war with Iraq. The "secret" Iran nuclear project. The Russian attack on Georgia. The list is endless.

That should tell you something then.