[Luvianka]

Time to get serious, guys. Let’s talk about money.
1. Do you know that the issuing of money in the USA is a monopoly of a private bank (The Federal Reserve) which creates money out of nothing and charges for doing so an interest rate that must be paid for by American taxpayers?
2. Do you know that all the money taxed and collected by the IRS is directly deposit in The Bank of England where The Federal Reserve has its real headquarters?
3. Do you know that since the dollar is the world reserve currency and so it’s used for every international transaction American taxpayers are forced to take and pay more loans so the World economy could have enough dollars to be spent. This is, if a Chinese company buys Argentinian barley the transaction is made in dollars. So American taxpayers are forced to take a loan and pay for interests on that loan, so the transaction between China and Argentina could be done. The benefit for American people on this one? None, just a cost.
4. Do you know that since banks operate under the principle of ‘fractional reserve’, every dollar is, in fact, multiplied by ten inside the banking system?
5. Are you sick of the experts’ explanations about the economy which explain nothing, and you feel they are not telling you the truth?
6. Have you been told many times that inflation comes when an economy has a lot of money, but there are just a few products and services to be bought, but you don’t understand why the shelves of every Wal-Mart are full packed of products while inflation hits your salary?
7. Have you seen the movie ‘Trading Places’ starring Dan Aykroyd and Eddie Murphy? Do you remember the antepenultimate scene where Winthorpe (Dan Aykroyd) and Billy Ray Valentine (Eddie Murphy) get rich in just two minutes trading Frozen and Concentrated Orange Juice? Did you feel that such scene was very important to understand how the Financial System works but you never understood quite well what happened there?
8. Do you feel the whole financial system is about to collapse?

If you want to know more about these questions, this is the book you have to read: ‘The Web of Debt’ by Ellen Hodgson Brown .



The book is an eye opener and reads like a thunder. It’s clean, lean and thigh. The author goes to the point and will open your eyes completely. I am not going to say anything else, find the truth by yourselves.

[vinman]

Read it a while back. One of the many reasons I moved 100K out of currency, and into metal. Why let banks use my money to make money when they're not paying me for the privilege. I would recommend that you check out Eustace Mullins, And Murray Rothbard as well.

[durangotang]

(02-17-2012 01:24 PM)vinman Wrote:  

Read it a while back. One of the many reasons I moved 100K out of currency, and into metal. Why let banks use my money to make money when they're not paying me for the privilege. I would recommend that you check out Eustace Mullins, And Murray Rothbard as well.

+1 one on Eustace Mullins. Eustace Mullins was Ezra Pounds protege, along with nobel prize winners Ernest Hemingway, James Joyce, William Butler Yeats, and T.S. Eliot. Ezra pound was incarcerated in Italy during World War II for broadcasting on radio about international financiers and the cause of world war. Ezra commissioned Eustace to head to the Library of Congress to investigate the Federal Reserve System, where he spent years and published the book "Secrets of the Federal Reserve." Thanks to Ezra and Eustace, who were pioneers, we now know what we know. They were the first.

Eustace later successfully freed Ezra from prison, and even sued the IRS for terrorism. Eustace recently passed away, but you can enjoy many of his fine interviews on YouTube.

If you'd like to learn more about Murray Rothbard, many of his works can be found here for free:

http://mises.org/Literature/Author/299/M...N-Rothbard

Edit, here's a video of a late Eustace Mullins speech:

[Duke Castile]

This sounds really, really, interesting. Thanks for the info

[tenderman100]

(02-17-2012 05:02 PM)durangotang Wrote:  

+1 one on Eustace Mullins. Eustace Mullins was Ezra Pounds protege, along with nobel prize winners Ernest Hemingway, James Joyce, William Butler Yeats, and T.S. Eliot. Ezra pound was incarcerated in Italy during World War II for broadcasting on radio about international financiers and the cause of world war. Ezra commissioned Eustace to head to the Library of Congress to investigate the Federal Reserve System, where he spent years and published the book "Secrets of the Federal Reserve." Thanks to Ezra and Eustace, who were pioneers, we now know what we know. They were the first.

Eustace later successfully freed Ezra from prison, and even sued the IRS for terrorism.

Remember that Ezra Pound was a fascist, an anti-semite, wrote for publications supported by the English Hitlerian fascist Oswald Mosley, and did radio addresses for Mussolini.

Granted, he was pretty much abused after the war, but on the other hand, he was a flaming anti-US asshole. (By the way, compared to the way we treated Ezra, Khalid Sheik Mohammed has gotten off easy).

Ezra was a great poet, but his political views are an anathema.

[tenderman100]

A couple of responses to the OP.

First, it is a GOOD thing that the dollar is the reserve currency; it allows our economy to stand at the center of world economy,and, if dollar supply increases are managed effectively (more on that later), then wealth creation is the end result.

Second, a central bank, like the Federal Reserve, is essential for a smooth operation of currency supply. Now, the Federal Reserve has been TOTALLY mismanaged over the past 25 years, for a variety of reasons. But mismanaging an institution, doesn't necessarily mean the institution is flawed.

Third, the creation of additional currency is ESSENTIAL to an economy's growth. Think about it. If the supply of currency DEcreases, or stays steady, then currency hoarding becomes incentivized, and people, invariably, move to a barter economy. Trust me, you DON"T want a barter economy. In contrast, if you have a steady but slow growth in the currency supply, businesses and individuals now can take that money, invest in productive activity to generate wealth.

Now, the Fed has totally mismanaged the currency, beginning in the Greenspan era and now into the Bernanke era. Too many dollars are floating around out there.

Finally, fractional reserve banking. It is NOT necessarily a bad thing because it creates money. It's bad if (a) it creates TOO much money, and (b) that extra money is invested in unproductive enterprises.

In other words, the problem with the global economy is not leverage...it's TOO MUCH leverage and the leverage is in the WORST places -- national budgets, current accounts, and, yes, financial institutions.

The reason the economy is in the toilet right now is that households, being smarter than financial elites, are de-leveraging. The financial elites -- governments, bankers -- can't bring themselves to do it, because it takes away their reason for existence (Politicians: giving out goodies via borrowed money to get re-elected. Bankers: earning big bonuses on pseudo profits from re-arranging securities).

Until the financial elites get their shit together, we will remain in big economic trouble.

[RebelLibertarian]

(02-18-2012 10:40 AM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

A couple of responses to the OP.

First, it is a GOOD thing that the dollar is the reserve currency; it allows our economy to stand at the center of world economy,and, if dollar supply increases are managed effectively (more on that later), then wealth creation is the end result.

Although I disagree with the rest of your points, tenderman100, this is actually true. We're "exporting" a considerable proportion of our total inflation to other countries, not just those that buy our bonds, but also those that trade with each other in USD as they hold dollars in between transactions for a finite (nonzero) amount of time. However, not only have many countries (China and Russia in particular) become recent sellers of T-notes (to the future detriment of the dollar), but there have also been several recent instances of 3rd-party countries dispensing with the USD for mutual trade (Iran and India, for instance).

When prices rise here in earnest due to our decades of inflation, most of that capital will come rushing back to the US; its holders will try to buy anything they can get their hands on here (stocks, property, commodities, &al.) lest their capital become entirely worthless. It's been estimated by G. Edward Griffin, another noted exposer of the Central Banking Cartel, that whatever augmented inflation rate is required to cause this influx of capital will quadruple the effective rate of price increases for some time.

(02-18-2012 10:40 AM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

Second, a central bank, like the Federal Reserve, is essential for a smooth operation of currency supply. Now, the Federal Reserve has been TOTALLY mismanaged over the past 25 years, for a variety of reasons. But mismanaging an institution, doesn't necessarily mean the institution is flawed.

No, mismanaging of an institution does not strictly mean that the institution is itself undesireable. In this case, however, a central bank that creates money from debt is harmful no matter whether its inflation rate seems "high" or "low" to us - it is still engaging in grand larceny from those who use its depreciating dollars (and we are pretty much forced to, given that taxes must be paid in USD, debts are declared legal tender in USD, and we are subject to 15% capital gains taxes when we flee to precious metals) to the Banksters and Gov. Expansion of the money supply also causes the boom-bust cycle. I'll detail how if you're interested (I'll really just be quoting Rothbard and Mises, so if you've read their works I'll have no new info for you).

(02-18-2012 10:40 AM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

Third, the creation of additional currency is ESSENTIAL to an economy's growth. Think about it. If the supply of currency DEcreases, or stays steady, then currency hoarding becomes incentivized, and people, invariably, move to a barter economy. Trust me, you DON"T want a barter economy. In contrast, if you have a steady but slow growth in the currency supply, businesses and individuals now can take that money, invest in productive activity to generate wealth.

Sorry my friend, but the choice between a [fictional - there have always been mediums of exchange available to people save when the State forbade their use, mainly because the privately-preferred mediums weren't depreciating like the State's were] primitive barter economy, wherein no medium of exchange is used and one must seek out sellers of desired goods who are also interested in one's own goods, and a fiat banking system, is a false one. In a truly free society, there would be competing medims of exchange advertised by their managers for quality and difficulty of counterfeiting. In practice, the efficiency of the *pure* market system (As distinct from the crony crapitalism we now suffer under as from pure socialism!) would ensure that these coins or banknote certificates for precious metals were completely backed by precious metals and thus subject to no inflationary conjuring.

The argument that there would be widespread deflation in a free society is probably the most common one against free coinage. Let me first point out that, for the US to introduce gold-backed money in any form (say, the more moderate State-issued type rather than the anarcho-libertarian system I personally prefer), there would have to be *considerable* debt-liquidation - deflation of the money supply. The sooner these bad debts, incurred in part due to central-bank falsification of economic conditions, are purged, the better, for capital will no longer have to be diverted from productive enterprises to fund imperfectly-planned projects and, moreover, the banksters who are paid for their money-printing thefts.

Anyways, in an economic system wherein currenc[y/ies] are voluntarily accepted by consumers and backed by something of innate value (given consumer desires, usually precious metals), the natural deflationary pressure of an increasing population is completely balanced by increased incentives for mining enterprises to mine, refine, &c. increased quantities of precious metals per unit time. The deflationary misconception is no doubt exacerbated by the fact that most people who understand the central banking system tend to put much of their wealth in precious metals, regarding them even as investments. Please understand that, while these measures are pretty good ways to evade the secret tax of inflation and thus necessary in our current unfree economy, they have limited 'investment' potential (they could only act as genuine investments if there is great flight pressure into them from accelerating inflation and they become more valuable due to their value-storing abilities), and in a free society, people would rarely park their wealth in 'cash'; rather, it would be profitable only for them to invest it, directly or through third parties.

(02-18-2012 10:40 AM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

Now, the Fed has totally mismanaged the currency, beginning in the Greenspan era and now into the Bernanke era. Too many dollars are floating around out there.

Truly. However, the expansion of the money supply by even 1% / annum is immoral and unproductive.

(02-18-2012 10:40 AM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

The reason the economy is in the toilet right now is that households, being smarter than financial elites, are de-leveraging. The financial elites -- governments, bankers -- can't bring themselves to do it, because it takes away their reason for existence (Politicians: giving out goodies via borrowed money to get re-elected. Bankers: earning big bonuses on pseudo profits from re-arranging securities).


Until the financial elites get their shit together, we will remain in big economic trouble.

Sadly, they've got their personal shit together. Something tells me that Helicopter Ben won't be going hungry in 2 years: they know what's coming and will emerge unscathed. We need to get ours together!

If the central banks were to de-leverage, this would at least better approximate what the free market would do if unfettered by the Banksters, and would thus be vastly preferable to our current situation.

[tenderman100]

(02-18-2012 01:45 PM)RebelLibertarian Wrote:  

Although I disagree with the rest of your points, tenderman100, this is actually true. We're "exporting" a considerable proportion of our total inflation to other countries, not just those that buy our bonds, but also those that trade with each other in USD as they hold dollars in between transactions for a finite (nonzero) amount of time. However, not only have many countries (China and Russia in particular) become recent sellers of T-notes (to the future detriment of the dollar), but there have also been several recent instances of 3rd-party countries dispensing with the USD for mutual trade (Iran and India, for instance).

I wouldn't worry about Iran so much--meanwhile, India, IIRC, was using the Yuan, which makes sense for them in certain circumstances.

(02-18-2012 01:45 PM)RebelLibertarian Wrote:  

When prices rise here in earnest due to our decades of inflation, most of that capital will come rushing back to the US; its holders will try to buy anything they can get their hands on here (stocks, property, commodities, &al.) lest their capital become entirely worthless.

Of course, this has been happening all along -- especially with cash strapped municipalities.

(02-18-2012 01:45 PM)RebelLibertarian Wrote:  

No, mismanaging of an institution does not strictly mean that the institution is itself undesireable. In this case, however, a central bank that creates money from debt is harmful no matter whether its inflation rate seems "high" or "low" to us - it is still engaging in grand larceny from those who use its depreciating dollars (and we are pretty much forced to, given that taxes must be paid in USD, debts are declared legal tender in USD, and we are subject to 15% capital gains taxes when we flee to precious metals) to the Banksters and Gov. Expansion of the money supply also causes the boom-bust cycle. I'll detail how if you're interested (I'll really just be quoting Rothbard and Mises, so if you've read their works I'll have no new info for you).

Read 'em both.

Inflation, like leverage in an of itself, isn't bad--it's TOO much inflation that's bad. I subscribe to Milton Friedman's view -- a structured libertarian view, as oppose to an anarcho-libertarian view -- the the Fed should increase the money supply by a fixed percentage each year, every year, no matter what.

What really matters is your REAL rate of return on capital -- the amount over and above inflation. An expanding money supply allows increase capital to be put to productive uses. This is how you create wealth. Fixing your currency to an inert piece of metal does NOT create wealth.

(02-18-2012 01:45 PM)RebelLibertarian Wrote:  

In a truly free society, there would be competing medims of exchange advertised by their managers for quality and difficulty of counterfeiting. In practice, the efficiency of the *pure* market system (As distinct from the crony crapitalism we now suffer under as from pure socialism!) would ensure that these coins or banknote certificates for precious metals were completely backed by precious metals and thus subject to no inflationary conjuring.

This isn't a vision of a free society...it's a vision of a society in economic chaos -- of a different kind than we have now, granted, but still chaotic.

(02-18-2012 01:45 PM)RebelLibertarian Wrote:  

The argument that there would be widespread deflation in a free society is probably the most common one against free coinage. Let me first point out that, for the US to introduce gold-backed money in any form (say, the more moderate State-issued type rather than the anarcho-libertarian system I personally prefer), there would have to be *considerable* debt-liquidation - deflation of the money supply. The sooner these bad debts, incurred in part due to central-bank falsification of economic conditions, are purged, the better, for capital will no longer have to be diverted from productive enterprises to fund imperfectly-planned projects and, moreover, the banksters who are paid for their money-printing thefts.

The first step has to be not debt liquidation but true asset writedown. And the assets that have to be written down? Bank assets. Once that happens the dollars that are ostensibly in the system AGAINST those assets have to be booked as decreases in capital. What we should be doing in undertaking a orderly write down of these assets -- every body takes turns and we methodically re-value. By the way this goes for the Fed, too.

[RebelLibertarian]

(02-18-2012 03:43 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

(02-18-2012 01:45 PM)RebelLibertarian Wrote:  

No, mismanaging of an institution does not strictly mean that the institution is itself undesireable. In this case, however, a central bank that creates money from debt is harmful no matter whether its inflation rate seems "high" or "low" to us - it is still engaging in grand larceny from those who use its depreciating dollars (and we are pretty much forced to, given that taxes must be paid in USD, debts are declared legal tender in USD, and we are subject to 15% capital gains taxes when we flee to precious metals) to the Banksters and Gov. Expansion of the money supply also causes the boom-bust cycle. I'll detail how if you're interested (I'll really just be quoting Rothbard and Mises, so if you've read their works I'll have no new info for you).

Read 'em both.

Inflation, like leverage in an of itself, isn't bad--it's TOO much inflation that's bad. I subscribe to Milton Friedman's view -- a structured libertarian view, as oppose to an anarcho-libertarian view -- the the Fed should increase the money supply by a fixed percentage each year, every year, no matter what.

Fair enough. How should this rate be calculated? Should it be convertible to gold/silver/&c., albeit at a differentiably-declining exchange rate? And should people be forced to use this depreciating currency? Moreover, how is the excess money to be distributed? In our current system, the bank$ters would skim a cool proportion off of the top, our congresscritters would find it easier than ever to spend it on some God-awful war or gov't program, &c. I will say that the transparency and constancy this system would afford us would be vastly superior to our current system.

(02-18-2012 03:43 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

What really matters is your REAL rate of return on capital -- the amount over and above inflation. An expanding money supply allows increase capital to be put to productive uses. This is how you create wealth. Fixing your currency to an inert piece of metal does NOT create wealth.

No, fixing one's currency to metal doesn't itself create wealth (nor does printing money, decreasing the money supply, &c.). Wealth is created when consumer needs/wants are met through voluntary transactions, and its production is accelerated when new methods, technologies, types of resources, &c. that facilitate the meeting of desires are discovered & used. The seminal question here is, why is an expanding money supply required to allow for the creation of wealth? Remember that, at least in the fiat system (in the case of a free coinage system, no one would choose to use the depreciating paper), citizens are coerced through tax laws, legal tender laws, and capital gains taxes into using the fiat currency.

If an aggressive body (usually calling itself a State) wishes to change the buying/selling habits of its subjects (really, victims) it usually can do so easily enough given its power, but unless it changes all of their habits (to do which it would have to put them in gulags basically. Not that I would put this above our elites) its aggression will introduce economic distortion. In the case of secretly-managed fiat currency, I think Rothbard explains very well how this causes the boom-bust cycle that is so wasteful of capital vis-a-viz consumer desires. In the more appealing case of a constantly-inflated gold-convertible currency, assuming we can trust the central bank (which is non-trivial concern!), we still have the problem of how the newly-created money is to be distributed (remember that it is procured through a tax!), and why it's even necessary in the first place. It's not as if the only money one can invest has to have been inflated from one's original savings.

(02-18-2012 03:43 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

(02-18-2012 01:45 PM)RebelLibertarian Wrote:  

In a truly free society, there would be competing medims of exchange advertised by their managers for quality and difficulty of counterfeiting. In practice, the efficiency of the *pure* market system (As distinct from the crony crapitalism we now suffer under as from pure socialism!) would ensure that these coins or banknote certificates for precious metals were completely backed by precious metals and thus subject to no inflationary conjuring.

This isn't a vision of a free society...it's a vision of a society in economic chaos -- of a different kind than we have now, granted, but still chaotic.

The market is chaotic. If you're disposed to buy an AR-15 rifle, say, would you feel more comfortable with a single State-owned company, or a mass of competitors? In the former case (unless its products were subsidized by the taxpayer, which I think we can agree would be immoral as well as economically undesirable), you would have to do almost no research into calibers, barrels, uppers, lowers, handguards, rails, pistol grips, stocks, &c., but no doubt you would not get the best quality/price ratio in your weapon. In procuring my AR-15, I had to spend a great deal of time researching it but got a more accurate, reliable, and hard-hitting weapon than those advertised by mainstream companies.

(02-18-2012 03:43 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

The first step has to be not debt liquidation but true asset writedown. And the assets that have to be written down? Bank assets. Once that happens the dollars that are ostensibly in the system AGAINST those assets have to be booked as decreases in capital. What we should be doing in undertaking a orderly write down of these assets -- every body takes turns and we methodically re-value. By the way this goes for the Fed, too.

This isn't a bad idea. I'd prefer an orderly phase-out of the Federal Reserve Note at the Fed and allowing the market to liquidate/write down/&c. companies' debts as the market decides they should be.