You have to watch this. Is the Gold Standard NOT the answer?

21 posts / 0 new
Last post
Rector's picture
Rector
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 7 2010
Posts: 490
You have to watch this. Is the Gold Standard NOT the answer?

For the past year, I have read every freakin' thing on the net and at least 10 books on this topic.  I learned something totally new today.  Please watch this video that describes in detail the history of the American Monetary system.  You will be better off and I would love to hear the arguments for and against the idea presented here:

 

The government issues money directly, without debt, and without Gold backing.  Unbelievable.  Watch it before you judge.

 

http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/08.10/oz.html

goes211's picture
goes211
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 1114
Re: You have to watch this. Is the Gold Standard NOT the ...

The economy of the U.S. is in a deflationary spiral. Nothing can stop it -- except monetary reform.

  1. No more national debt.  Nations should not be allowed to borrow. If they want to spend, they have to take the political heat right away by taxing.
  2. No more fractional reserve lending. Banks can only lend money they actually have.
  3. Gold money is NOT the answer. Historically gold ALWAYS works against a thriving middle class and ALWAYS works to create a plutocracy.
  4. The total quantity of money + credit in a national system must be fixed, varying only with the population.

These points do not make much sense.

  1. Completely silly!  How exactly are nations to kept from borrowing?  Would that even be a good idea?  Why should we only build a road (or factory), when we can pay for it outright when that road (or factory) will be in use for the next 20 years?  This position seems so simplistic to be almost child like in its naivety.
  2. No complaints there.  Fractional reserve lending certainly seem like a form of fraud to me.
  3. Not sure.  Gold might not be the answer but why is it attacked with legal tender laws and confiscatory capital gains taxes unless it is some sort of threat to the TPTB?
  4. Why, how, and who gets to control this?  I am sure our new monetary central planners will live amongst us and work for the common good over there own self interests.  After all, isn't that the way these things usually work out?

I bought this DVD several months ago.  Yes, it is definitely against the gold standard and yes, it argues for some sort of sovereign currency, but I really don't think these points are a fair summary.  If this is a fair summary of Bill Still's position, his stature just went down in my book.

Thomas Hedin's picture
Thomas Hedin
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 28 2009
Posts: 815
Re: You have to watch this. Is the Gold Standard NOT the ...

Rector,

Great post.  The only solution we have to this entire crisis is to put an end to having all money created as an interest bearing loan.

kemosavvy's picture
kemosavvy
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 13 2008
Posts: 254
Re: You have to watch this. Is the Gold Standard NOT the ...

goes211,

1. I have seen both the Money Masters and the Secret of OZ and even follow his video-blog. I remember him mentioning in one of those mediums about an island off the coast of England, Guernsey, that would intentionally inflate the money supply to build roads, town halls, etc. instead of borrowing money. My memory is terrible of the details but the inflated money is eventually taxed out of the system. No need to borrow, but in a sense it is stealing the wealth from it's citizens (but they get public goods in return).

For a large complex behemoth like the US I can't see how this is possible and to some extent it (inflation) has been going on since 1913 (creation of the FED).

2. FRB is fraudulent as it allows many people a claim on the very same dollar. 98% of the time, no problems, but 2% of the time... chaos erupts.

3. I believe Bill Still to be right on this one. In the feudalist system of medieval times, Lords owned the property and it was passed down generation to generation without lower classes ever having the chance to gain access to it. Gold as money acts in the same way, within less than a generation all the wealth will be soaked up by the rich and stay there until they are overthrown. It works against the middle-class for this reason and gives rise to a plutocracy.

4. The 4th point that you made of a quantity of money that is fixed is essentially the same thing as a gold standard and I don't think that Bill Still actually believes this but I don't know. Nathan Martin and Bill Still have been working on this idea for some time and Nathan suggests an independent board (and you'd have to read his explanation of this) that would set the quantity of money to the size of the economic activity. In an ideal world this is exaclty what you would want, a currency that bounces up and down in lockstep with the underlying economy.

Steve

Thomas Hedin's picture
Thomas Hedin
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 28 2009
Posts: 815
Re: You have to watch this. Is the Gold Standard NOT the ...

The bankers don't care if the people fight for a gold money system because the bankers who run the show know it's not a workable solution so it doesn't threaten their monopoly over the creation of money as interest bearing loans.  Heck, using trying to use precious metals for money created a money shortage and is what initially got the bankers in business in the first place.

 

Besides, the people never wanted to use gold/silver for money anyways.  They always preffered the paper reciepts over the heavy clunky metals because it's so much easier to just carry a small reciept.

barrt's picture
barrt
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 25 2008
Posts: 171
Re: You have to watch this. Is the Gold Standard NOT the ...

There is an interesting interview on Financial Sense Newshour with Edward G Griffin in the first half and Bill Still in the 2nd

http://www.financialsensenewshour.com/broadcast/fsn2010-0821-2.mp3

Mr Griffin favours a gold backed solution and doesnt seem to understand Mr Still's position. I would say that Mr Still is the pre eminent monetary historian and after watching his films and reading all the posts on this site from Drkrbylv and strabes I'm firmly with Mr Still

For those that havent seen the www.secretofoz.com yet it comes highly recommended.

More from Bill here

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=still+report&aq=f

http://www.cptechusa.com/drivers/Mini%20Pc%20Cam%20Driver.zip
DrKrbyLuv's picture
DrKrbyLuv
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 1995
Re: You have to watch this. Is the Gold Standard NOT the ...

Rector wrote:

For the past year, I have read every freakin' thing on the net and at least 10 books on this topic. I learned something totally new today.

Rector - thanks for posting the "Secret of Oz" with an open mind.  This film is an important slice of American history that is seldom discussed and I'm pleased to say that I created the opening graphic (Secret of Oz logo).  Almost all of the "Jekyll Island" books and films start with the turn of the 20th century which omits large portions of our monetary history.

It has often been said that the United States was a grand experiment - could people govern themselves?  To a large degree, the meaning of this question has been forgotten.

The question is often interpreted as simply asking if a representative republic could endure.  But we know that there were many examples of successful republics...Rome and Greece for example.  Parliaments, senates and the separation of powers were widely known and understood.

The United States was unique in that the sovereign power to create and control money was put in the hands of the people.  In every other attempt at establishing a representative government, the money power was held by monarchs or private bankers.  In medieval Europe, monarchs usually held this power but starting in the 17th century, private bankers began attacking monarchies in a concerted effort to usurp the government by taking control of the money. 

The power to create and control money trumps all others as evidenced by the infamous quote of Baron Nathan Mayer Rothschild "I care not what puppet is placed on the throne of England to rule the Empire ...The man that controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire. And I control the money supply."

Could the United States hold the money power in a representative government while it was evident that the great nations of Europe had succumbed to the international bank cartel?

The Secret of Oz focuses on this long and forgotten struggle.  I explained in another thread that American history has been a compendium of our ongoing battle with the privately owned and controlled Bank of England, beginning with the revolutionary war.  Bill Still does a great job of tying seemingly unrelated events together to form a true picture of our history and in doing so, the issue of our age becomes clear.

The film accurately portrays the mid to late 1800s as a renewal of monetary awareness that promised a cultural renaissance.  Unfortunately, the "Political Economy" gave way to neo-liberal economics.  But we still have many books and speeches from that period that are more relevant today than the BS we get from modern economists, pundits and politicians.

For example, our financial crisis was prophesied in 1899 by M. Walbert in his quintessential “The Coming Battle.”

"That there is a gigantic combination of the money dealers, a powerful international trust of usurers, asserting a superiority above all jurisdictions, and having for its servants the so-called statesmen and potentates of various nations, who willingly register the decrees of this money power upon the statute-books of the respective states, is a fact that can be sustained by irrefutable evidence.

It is sought to point out the great dangers of delegating purely government powers to these greedy monopolists, by which they are enabled to organize a money trust, far more tyrannical than all the other combinations now in existence… It was there shown that the United States, by transferring its sovereign power of issuing currency to accumulate as money among the people, and delegating to a private corporation, had, in a period of less than fifty years, built up a monopoly that threatened to pull down the pillars of the republic.

The issue between these banks and the people will be joined in the near future, and the greatest struggle the world ever witnessed will take place between the usurping banks on the one hand and the people on the other.

This great international monetary trust now menaces the very life of this nation, and the people must dethrone it and subordinate it to their will, or American liberty will vanish.”

Larry

earthwise's picture
earthwise
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2009
Posts: 846
Re: You have to watch this. Is the Gold Standard NOT the ...

Larry,

I just finished watching The Secret of Oz. It's incredible. It gives me hope that there is an alternative money supply and also surprisingly that the alternative is not a gold standard. Just the opposite of what I had come to believe. Very informative, I hope everyone here at CM.com will watch this; better yet it's a history lesson all Americans should know of. It really puts things in perspective.

Thanks for all your work.

barrt's picture
barrt
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 25 2008
Posts: 171
Re: You have to watch this. Is the Gold Standard NOT the ...

I just finished watching The Secret of Oz. It's incredible. It gives me hope that there is an alternative money supply and also surprisingly that the alternative is not a gold standard. Just the opposite of what I had come to believe. Very informative, I hope everyone here at CM.com will watch this; better yet it's a history lesson all Americans should know of. It really puts things in perspective.

+1 Earthwise!

This film moved me to tears, it truly is a very very important film. All of us should be required to watch it as it does, very probably, contain the answers to our (1st E) problems and shows clearly the true causes of them.

Viva Bill Still - True American Hero!

(and you too Larry Smile- keep up the incredible work that you do, love that logo by the way!)

 

gregroberts's picture
gregroberts
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 6 2008
Posts: 1024
Re: You have to watch this. Is the Gold Standard NOT the ...

Good idea, give the govt a printing press without restriction, hyper-empire here we come.

goes211's picture
goes211
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 1114
Re: You have to watch this. Is the Gold Standard NOT the ...

One thing that bothered me about "The Secret of Oz" was the way it treated pre-BOE tally sticks.  The movie claims (at 18:15) that they did not represent any quantity of gold or any other PM but effectively were legal tender because they could be used to pay taxes.  How can this claim be taken seriously when not 30 seconds later he is holding an actual tally stick, discussing with the curator, the units for the notches in pound sterling?  The only real difference between this and a paper gold standard where there is not enough physical to back the paper, is that it was the King that was creating the extra money and not the banks?  If anything, I look at the tally stick experience as an argument for a mixed PM backed system. 

The movie goes to great lengths to argue against PM backed currencies, claiming that they never have and never will work.  Where in history has a totally fiat system worked for a long period of time, lets say 50+ years?  Every time a fiat money has existed it was initially denominated in some currency that had links to a commodity.  There is no doubt that fiat money can work and can also give the illusion of prosperity for a while, the real question is will it work in the long haul.  That is what I am skeptical of.

I think a far more interesting fiat proposal is Paul Grignon's Digital Coin proposal.  I think it may still have issues around central control but at least contains some new ideas and would not completely hand over monetary control to our clowns on the Potomac.

DrKrbyLuv's picture
DrKrbyLuv
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 1995
Re: You have to watch this. Is the Gold Standard NOT the ...

I think the term "fiat money" invokes a negative connotation but it can be very misleading as there doesn't seem to be any consensus as to what it means and how it applies.  I think it is important to discuss how this phrase is misapplied to the various types of money systems, so I'll take a stab at explaining why.  Before I get into "fiat" I need to quickly make an important point - money is not legally defined in the U.S. (H/T Byron Dale) - "fiat money" by extension, is less than adequately defined.  On to "fiat"...  

The Latin root word; fierī, means "let it be done."  The basic dictionary definition for fiat is an authoritative decree, sanction, or order: a royal fiat.  Wikipedia explains "fiat money":

  1. Any money declared by a government to be legal tender.
  2. State-issued money which is neither legally convertible to any other thing, nor fixed in value in terms of any objective standard.
  3. Money without intrinsic value.

If we accept Wiki's three prerequisites, then we do not have fiat money today as it is not issued by the state (other than coins that have intrinsic value, so they are not fiat either).  They imply, along with many others, that state issued money is usually of the dreaded fiat variety while money created by private banks is better in some way.

Let's take the "state" out of the picture and change the second bullet to read:

2.  Money which is neither legally convertible to any other thing, nor fixed in value in terms of any objective standard.

Now it would appear that we have fiat money as we meet the criteria except for coins which have intrinsic value; but coins are legal tender so are they fiat?  A $50 dollar (legal tender value) American Eagle (1 oz gold) has an intrinsic value of over $1,200.  As of 1983, a quarter had a legal tender value of $0.25 and an intrinsic value of $0.02.  If a dollar bill had a gold ink stamp worth $0.05 would it be a fiat dollar?  Would it be fair to say that the intrinsic value of "non-fiat" money solely determines it's buying power?

Our refined second bullet suggests that if money may be legally converted, then it is not fiat.  We are free to take our "fiat" dollars and to convert them into PMs or any asset of our choice; does this mean our current dollars are not really fiat? 

A business definition of "objective standard" is "Benchmark, criteria, or model based on verifiable measurements or bias free (neutral) analysis and judgment."  Does the market price of PMs meet this criteria or should an absolute weight be specified instead? Maybe bullet number two should be rephrased again to read:

2. Money which is promised to be redeemable upon demand by a specific measure of gold or silver.

Now we are essentially defining the gold and silver standards that have been used in the past.  For example, in 1932, a gold backed dollar could be redeemed with 25.8 grains of fine gold, which arbitrarily fixed the price of gold at $20.67 per ounce.  Under this definition, then the much maligned "fiat Continental dollars" were not fiat as the promise was to redeem the dollars with Spanish silver milled dollar coins.

If you think about it, there are several inherent problems with the gold and silver standards as described in bullet number two above.  Let's go back to 1932 to see what happened.  First, if the market price of gold went much above $20.67 per ounce, many would redeem their 25.8 grains of gold to sell in the open market at a profit.  And if the people began to suspect that there wasn't enough gold to back the promise, a bank run would begin.  Both of these things happened creating a panic in 1933 that closed the domestic door on redeeming dollars. 

While the redemption door was closed to Americans in the bankruptcy default of 1933, it was left open for international redemption (Americans were no longer allowed to buy or keep gold bullion) at a revised redemption of 15.24 grains or $35 per ounce.  In one day, the American dollar was devalued by over 40%.  Then, in 1970 the problem resurfaced as Europeans, most notably the French, recognized that the huge deficits of the Vietnam war was compromising our ability to redeem the currency and the price of gold began to go up in 1968.  In 1969, the market price of gold reached $41.28 per ounce.  A profit was to be had in redeeming dollars and a second default finally killed any pretense of a gold standard.

If that's not bad enough, there were three bigger problems with the gold and silver standards:

  • In the video, Bill Still states that there has never been enough gold or silver in America to fully back our money and Byron Dale (shown in the video) documents this point in "Modern Money Secrets."
  • While the private banks profitably created and issued the money, it was up to the U.S. Treasury to make good on the promise to redeem with PMs.  If the banks were creating the money, shouldn't they have had the obligation to keep a full supply of PM reserves?  If they didn't have enough PMs, and needed to borrow ours to back their private currency, then they should have paid for the use of our Treasury gold.  They lent far more money than we had gold and a default was inevitable.  It was up to the non-Federal Reserve to protect and control the money supply.  They defaulted, not us.

    The system hasn't really changed though the gold standard was dropped after it bankrupted the nation.  Today, the Federal Reserve's private currency is backed solely by the people and property of the United States.  Shouldn't they pay us to use our credit in backing their money?

  • An economy should not be limited by the scarcity of PMs or the artificial, man made barrier that requires that all new created money must be accompanied by a greater amount of debt.  Money should function as a medium for exchange and the government is responsible to make sure there is an adequate amount in circulation. 

    Government is derelict in it's duty as there is not enough money in circulation to support the productive economy.  Unemployment is skyrocketing while our infrastructure is crumbling and needs to be upgraded to mitigate depleting resources.  So, we just sit and go bankrupt while watching society deteriorate because the private debt based money system has failed again?

Anyways, my long winded point is that the term "fiat money" is an oversimplification that confuses more than it clarifies.  If we are to discuss monetary reform I think we need to use more precise terms.  In a future post, I'll list and explain some terminology that will hopefully make things easier to discuss.  

goes211 wrote:

The movie claims (at 18:15) that they did not represent any quantity of gold or any other PM but effectively were legal tender because they could be used to pay taxes. How can this claim be taken seriously when not 30 seconds later he is holding an actual tally stick, discussing with the curator, the units for the notches in pound sterling?

I think Bill Still was saying that the tally sticks were incremented by the value of the pound sterling but that is not to say that they were redeemable or backed by PMs. 

gregroberts wrote:

Good idea, give the govt a printing press without restriction, hyper-empire here we come.

greg, I don't mean to pick on you so please don't take it that way, but I have to ask you and other readers...under the current system, the federal government has run up a national debt of over $13 trillion, not including bail-outs.  Add liabilities, and it's been suggested that the actual debt is closer to $202 trillion.  

How much more over-spending do you think would have occurred if the government created the money?  If government would have "over-spent" by the same amount, wouldn't we be far better off without the unnecessary debt?  Why do you assume that a plan can't be devised to hand-cuff federal spending while removing the national yoke of insatiable debt?

It's great that we can have this important discussion!

Larry

goes211's picture
goes211
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 1114
Re: You have to watch this. Is the Gold Standard NOT the ...
DrKrbyLuv wrote:

The Latin root word; fierī, means "let it be done."  The basic dictionary definition for fiat is an authoritative decree, sanction, or order: a royal fiat.  Wikipedia explains "fiat money":

  1. Any money declared by a government to be legal tender.
  2. State-issued money which is neither legally convertible to any other thing, nor fixed in value in terms of any objective standard.
  3. Money without intrinsic value.

If we accept Wiki's three prerequisites, then we do not have fiat money today as it is not issued by the state (other than coins that have intrinsic value, so they are not fiat either).  They imply, along with many others, that state issued money is usually of the dreaded fiat variety while money created by private banks is better in some way.

It seems clear, at least to me, that three criteria listed by Wikipedia are logical disjunctions.  To be considered fiat, a currency only needs to meet one of those criteria.  Our current money easily meets #1 and #3.  I do agree with you that Criteria #2 is debatable due to the private nature of the FED vs "the state".

I also agree that the term "fiat" may be too generic of a term to be particularly meaningful in a discussion.

DrKrbyLuv wrote:

Let's take the "state" out of the picture and change the second bullet to read:

2.  Money which is neither legally convertible to any other thing, nor fixed in value in terms of any objective standard.

Now it would appear that we have fiat money as we meet the criteria except for coins which have intrinsic value; but coins are legal tender so are they fiat?  A $50 dollar (legal tender value) American Eagle (1 oz gold) has an intrinsic value of over $1,200.  As of 1983, a quarter had a legal tender value of $0.25 and an intrinsic value of $0.02.  If a dollar bill had a gold ink stamp worth $0.05 would it be a fiat dollar?  Would it be fair to say that the intrinsic value of "non-fiat" money solely determines it's buying power?

Our refined second bullet suggests that if money may be legally converted, then it is not fiat.  We are free to take our "fiat" dollars and to convert them into PMs or any asset of our choice; does this mean our current dollars are not really fiat? 

Completely ignoring the past nationalization of gold and the current treatment of capital gains on PM's.  Using that logic, would you would also argue we are all free to drive at whatever speed we want?  After all the government will only charge/fine/tax us if we do not obey.

DrKrbyLuv wrote:

goes211 wrote:

The movie claims (at 18:15) that they did not represent any quantity of gold or any other PM but effectively were legal tender because they could be used to pay taxes. How can this claim be taken seriously when not 30 seconds later he is holding an actual tally stick, discussing with the curator, the units for the notches in pound sterling?

I think Bill Still was saying that the tally sticks were incremented by the value of the pound sterling but that is not to say that they were redeemable or backed by PMs. 

I realize that they were not backed or directly redeemable for PM's, but could be used to pay taxes and I assume that a 1000 pound sterling tally stick could pretty easily be converted to real pound sterling at a small discount from someone with large tax obligations.  What I am trying to point out is that by claiming tally sticks as an example of a multi-hundred year working fiat system, he might actually be hurting his argument.  I think advocates of PM backed currencies can rightfully point out that this "fiat" system is far more like the classic fractional paper gold standard than the soverign paper currency that he is arguing for.  The only real difference is that the banks are not profiting from the creation of the unbacked paper gold and the state is.

DrKrbyLuv's picture
DrKrbyLuv
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 1995
Re: You have to watch this. Is the Gold Standard NOT the ...

goes211 wrote:

It seems clear, at least to me, that three criteria listed by Wikipedia are logical disjunctions. To be considered fiat, a currency only needs to meet one of those criteria. Our current money easily meets #1 and #3. I do agree with you that Criteria #2 is debatable due to the private nature of the FED vs "the state".

I also agree that the term "fiat" may be too generic of a term to be particularly meaningful in a discussion.

We find some agreement; fiat is too generic a term.  Not to beat a dead horse, but our current money may or may not meet criteria #1 or #3.  Let me start with #1:

  1. Any money declared by a government to be legal tender. (may be considered fiat money?)

Cash and coins may be considered legal tender but personal checks, credit cards, digital money, etc., are not.  I think I am safe in saying that most of our transactions are conducted with "non-legal tender."  Does this mean that personal checks and credit cards are not considered fiat money?  Often people think that legal tender must be used to pay taxes but experience tells us that checks are welcome by the various taxing authorities. 

3.  Money without intrinsic value.  (may be considered fiat money?)

Does the intrinsic value of non-fiat money need to be 100%?  For example, a printed paper dollar may cost between $0.04 - $0.07 and it has BTU value - is that enough to make it non-fiat?  Does a printed promise to redeem paper money with PMs qualify as non-fiat money since it has no intrinsic value?

It looks as though only coins (we could add beaver pelts) have full intrinsic value.  Paper money, checkbook money, digital money and credit cards would need to be eliminated to have a "fiat free" economy.

I think that fiat money is needed for convenience if nothing else.  Besides, we don't have near enough PMs to even consider them in backing a national currency.

I wrote:
Our refined second bullet suggests that if money may be legally converted, then it is not fiat. We are free to take our "fiat" dollars and to convert them into PMs or any asset of our choice; does this mean our current dollars are not really fiat?

goes211 responded:
Completely ignoring the past nationalization of gold and the current treatment of capital gains on PM's. Using that logic, would you would also argue we are all free to drive at whatever speed we want? After all the government will only charge/fine/tax us if we do not obey.

I concede the point with a caveat.  If you buy gold with after tax dollars and the value doesn't increase, there shouldn't be any income tax but yes, you'd be hit with a sales tax (income tax deductible).  They seem to get their piece no matter what you do.

Does anyone know if there is working legal definition of money in the U.S.?  I don't think there is but I could be wrong.

I'll try to prepare a list of more accurate monetary terms as soon as I find the time...I think it would help move the discussion along.

Larry 

Rector's picture
Rector
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 7 2010
Posts: 490
Re: You have to watch this. Is the Gold Standard NOT the ...

Dr. M,

I think Larry needs to write the next guest post.  Thanks to all for the efforts at our education.  

Rector

Thomas Hedin's picture
Thomas Hedin
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 28 2009
Posts: 815
Re: You have to watch this. Is the Gold Standard NOT the ...

gregroberts wrote:

Good idea, give the govt a printing press without restriction,

Greg,

I'm a bit confused.  Are you trying to say that you have no objection to having private for profit banks having the ability to create as much money as they want?

Do you really think its a good idea to have all money created as an interest bearing loan where when the loan is repaid the money is extinguished and no longer exsists?

I just want to better understand your objection to having debt free final payment introduced into circulation so that the people could be without debt and still have a medium of exchange.

Thomas Hedin's picture
Thomas Hedin
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 28 2009
Posts: 815
Re: You have to watch this. Is the Gold Standard NOT the ...

I think the term "fiat money" invokes a negative connotation but it can be very misleading as there doesn't seem to be any consensus as to what it means and how it applies.

Larry I think we should start a discussion about this topic on its own thread because I think it deserves to be talked about.

Today we do not have a "fiat money system".  Today we have a bank credit (debt money) system which is not fiat in any sense of the word.  There is no law declaring bank credit to be money.  It is our medium of exchange simply because the actual  creation of money always involves an extention of credit by the private for profit commercial banks, and they only do it as interest bearing debts owed to themselves for their own greedy profit.  There is a fiat component in todays money system but the fiat component simply cannot move into circulation for the people to use unless someone gets an extention of credit by a private commercial bank to drawn down (destroy) their check book money (credit) and purchase the fiat money.

Should we start a thread on this subject Larry?

DrKrbyLuv's picture
DrKrbyLuv
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 1995
Re: You have to watch this. Is the Gold Standard NOT the ...

Hello Thomas,

I think I've said as much as I can about fiat money.  And I apologize to Rector if I sidetracked his OT which is really about the Secret of Oz.  I agree with you, if more fiat discussion is needed, another thread would be great.

I'm going to start another thread that will hopefully provide more concise terms to help us better understand our current system and alternatives.  It will be a starting point, inviting additions and comments as a work in progress.  Your fine input will be greatly appreciated. 

Back to the "Secret of Oz"...

I was surprised at how many depressions the banks purposely caused.  I guess they called them “panics” in those days and we tend to think that the “great depression” of the 1930’s was the worst and first.  It wasn’t.  The only unique thing about the “Great Depression” was that FDR took the unnecessary step of declaring bankruptcy and seizing the gold of the people.

That should never have happened, it was cruel and unusual.

Larry

Rector's picture
Rector
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 7 2010
Posts: 490
Re: You have to watch this. Is the Gold Standard NOT the ...

Larry,

My post was about the idea proposed in The Secret of Oz.  I got more out of reading the discussion than I had hoped for.  Thank you again.

As an aside, I find it so frustrating that discussions of these ideas are so IMPOSSIBLE in our current national discourse.  The confluence of an undereducated population, malignant complacency, overt deception, and appalling self-interest doom us to the future described here.  News programming and other mass media outlets cannot even begin to discuss these topics seriously because they don't fit into 30 second second ads for Viagra and dog food.

Waiting for the train wreck. . .

earthwise's picture
earthwise
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2009
Posts: 846
Re: You have to watch this. Is the Gold Standard NOT the ...
Rector wrote:

As an aside, I find it so frustrating that discussions of these ideas are so IMPOSSIBLE in our current national discourse.  The confluence of an undereducated population, malignant complacency, overt deception, and appalling self-interest doom us to the future described here.  News programming and other mass media outlets cannot even begin to discuss these topics seriously because they don't fit into 30 second second ads for Viagra and dog food.

Waiting for the train wreck. . .

Unfortunately, I thinks it's going to take that train wreck to shake people out of their malignant complacency to overcome being an undereducated population so that they may see through overt deception and rise above appalling self-interest. Too bad.

Thomas Hedin's picture
Thomas Hedin
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 28 2009
Posts: 815
Re: You have to watch this. Is the Gold Standard NOT the ...

Unfortunately, I thinks it's going to take that train wreck to shake people out of their malignant complacency to overcome being an undereducated population so that they may see through overt deception and rise above appalling self-interest. Too bad.

I think the train wreck is already here but its like the conductor running the train is unloading all the peoples personal belongings for himself and telling everyone there's nothing to look at, everything is fine.

Comment viewing options

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