An invitation to dialog

[Iolchan]

iolchan wrote:

"I'd like to see this thread stay on track on the Issue of Money - and what to do with the damned Central Bank we have Now."

CSummer wrote:

Since I don't think there's anything I or anyone I know can do about the Central Bank, I'd rather explore how we can make money more of a non-issue. To me, this seems like moving more into the realm of real possibilities for outside-the-box co-creation.

iolchan wrote:

"So, I'd like us to put our heads together and see if we can co-create {or co-envision} a Just and Equitable Money System that works for the People -the 99%- and not exclusively to grow, exponentially, the Wealth of the bond-holding Class - the 1%... "

CSummer wrote:

Clint: Sounds like an interesting exercise, Mark! Let's see where I can go with it . . .

I would like to begin by pointing out that money, in and of itself, doesn't meet any real human needs. Imagining that it does just leads to obsession with accumulating more and rarely to a healthier or happier life. A movie I just watched, "The Economics of Happiness" does a great job of showing this.

One thing I seem to have learned about systems (defined as ways of doing something, i.e, of performing some function) is that the less you need them to do, the better. Then the system becomes less obtrusive, energy consuming and problematic.

So in my ideal world, we minimize the need for money - or for a means of accounting for exchanges of goods and services, as well as for an easily portable medium of said exchanges (assuming this is the function of a monetary system). We can meet all basic human needs without the use of money - or with only minimal use. If/when we live in cooperative communities, we can all work together to build dwellings and to construct, maintain and operate systems for food/fiber growing and processing as well as for energy production. Everyone participating in this work to some minimum amount is eligible to have all their necessities provided. (If we're worried about "slackers," we can keep track of each member's contribution and limit access to what is produced accordingly.) Money is then only needed when some critical resource is not available within the community holdings or when some non-essential product or service is desired.

So do we need a monetary system? In terms of meeting real human needs, probably not. One might come in handy though in order to facilitate the exchanging of goods and services when a means of accounting for (recording the value of) such exchanges is deemed desirable.

Here are some values for such a system:

To be trustworthy, it must be fair and simple to understand for all users.
It should be transparent and verifiable, with transaction values traceable to both the provider and receiver of any exchanges.
It should be based on real value, e.g., on human energy and time.
It should be flexible, with exchange values negotiable.
It must be free of any potential for abuse.
It should facilitate economic activity and never unnecessarily restrict it.
It must be easy to use, i.e., user friendly.
Using the system should generally leave people with positive feelings (e.g., gratitude for its existence).

As it turns out, such systems already exist. Some even solve the problem of "money supply" by enabling users to create money or credit as needed. One form is called a mutual credit system, such as a Local Exchange Trading System (LETS) or a Community Exchange System. Imagine an on-line service that keeps track of all members accounts. You start with a zero balance, and negative balances are quite acceptable. When you "sell" a product or service to another member, your balance goes up (positive) by the amount of the agreed-upon exchange value and the buyer's balance goes down by the same amount. The value would be negotiable; based on a person-hour (p-h) but flexible in terms of how many p-h's equate to an actual hour, since the hours put in performing surgery (for example) might be considered worth more than those spent helping someone move.

Both buyers and sellers can see each other's accounts, and a seller may want to see a buyer's balance before deciding to provide a service or product. A balance that is a high negative value indicates the member has done a lot more receiving than giving, and a seller may choose not to "extend credit" to the member. On the other hand, a member seeking a service or product may avoid someone with a high positive balance in favor of helping a member with a low balance build credit. In this way, the system encourages a balance between providing and receiving.

How might we create such a system locally? (It doesn't take an act of Congress!) It could be - and has been - done by a nonprofit organization. Ideally, it would be created by a group of people who have come together to form a community of mutual support for the meeting of members' needs. The primary focus of the community would be to explore ways of meeting the basic needs we all share in common - and doing so using local resources, with a minimum of dependence on violent, unjust or eco-destructive institutions. The more successful we are at this, the less we need money. An alternative monetary system would enable economic activity to happen that might otherwise be restricted by a scarcity of money. The larger the user base, the more viable the system.

A money-focused economy is a dysfunctional economy. It creates the illusion that people need money in order to live, so they need jobs in order to earn money. It makes sense if the purpose of a socio-economic system is to keep power and wealth concentrated in the hands of an owner class. But if the purpose is to support all of us in meeting our needs, then money and jobs become much less important. Access to natural resources, tools, knowledge and other people is what enables real people to meet their real needs in healthy, sustainable ways.

We don't need to reform the banking system; we need to build communities of mutual support as the basic elements of a cooperative society. We need to de-commodify the meeting of human needs. And this is a good thing, because it's one thing we may actually have the power to do!

CSummer

I like what you have written, Clint, and there are good many elements - and wisdom also, in it. However, the Question still remains, "What are we going to do about the National - and International Debt?" Because that is the vise, and the choke-hold, that the 1% - the bond-holding class - have upon We, The Plebes. And they do it through the Franchise in banking that their holding companies - Banks - have received from the Federal and State governments.

You have written:

CSummer wrote:

We don't need to reform the banking system; we need to build communities of mutual support as the basic elements of a cooperative society. We need to de-commodify the meeting of human needs. And this is a good thing, because it's one thing we may actually have the power to do!

I agree completely, Clint, about the "need to build communities of mutual support as the basic elements of a cooperative society;" and the "need to de-commodify the meeting of human needs," I still maintain that it is the Banking System - and its "ownership" of the government, that is the main problem, holding us in thrall.

And while you may be absolutely correct that "the one thing we may actually have the power to do" may be "the building of Community;" (ergo) we may not actually have the power to change the "Banking System;" it is only so because of Ignorance and Apathy among the Masses on the score of what is really going on, and how the System really works; that is the cause for our collective powerlessness on this Score...

- Mark

[CSummer]

Thanks for your response, Mark. I must ask you to explain to me - and perhaps other readers -
how it is that the national and international debt gives the 1% (bond holders) a choke-hold
on the rest of us. I wonder if that is only true to the extent that we participate in their
monetary system (i.e., fail to create our own alternative system). Anyway, if you could
explain that without too much trouble - and without my having to do a lot of reading -
I'd appreciate it. If I believed there is anything we could do about it - or if I better understood
the nature of the problem (i.e., how it affects people like us) - I might be interested in
making more of an effort myself to look into it.

I like what you have written, Clint, and there are good many elements - and wisdom also, in it. However, the Question still remains, "What are we going to do about the National - and International Debt?" Because that is the vise, and the choke-hold, that the 1% - the bond-holding class - have upon We, The Plebes. And they do it through the Franchise in banking that their holding companies - Banks - have received from the Federal and State governments.

> I still maintain that it is the Banking System - and its "ownership" of the government,
> that is the main problem, holding us in thrall.

One definition I find for "thrall" is servitude or bondage. I don't understand how it is true
that the banking system is holding us (you and me) in thrall, except to the extent that we
seem to - or believe - we need their money in order to live. So, again, please explain.

I have been known to say: The problem isn't out there, and neither is the solution.
If it is somewhere out there, then we are removed from it, and I don't see how we
can resolve it. If, on the other hand, we see the problem as within and among us -
in our way of life and our lack of mutually-supportive connectedness (i.e., community) -
which arise from our view of ourselves, others and the world, then it becomes something
we can address. It becomes something within our power to change or remedy.

> (ergo) we may not actually have the power to change the "Banking System;" it is only so because of Ignorance and Apathy among the Masses on the score of what is really going on, and how the System really works;
> that is the cause for our collective powerlessness on this Score...

Yes, I agree, and I applaud your efforts to educate the ignorant masses (myself included!).
In the 35 or so years I've been either participating in or observing political activism,
I've heard the lament that "if only we could get people to understand and get them together . . ."
I don't know how we can do that, unless perhaps we could make a very clear and simple
case for how the banking system is harming people and what we/they could do to change it.
Apathy comes from a sense of powerlessness, and I think we have good reason to feel
powerless - even ignoring all the unconscious powerlessness we carry within ourselves
from infancy and childhood.

I don't think there's any way we can make the 1% change as long as they don't have
a good reason to. Some may think that the people rose up and ended the Viet Nam war,
but the the military was losing the war so it wasn't in their interest to continue. While the
system is working for the 1%, we can protest, write letters and make calls all we want,
and they still won't have a good reason to change anything.

My sense is also that most people listen much more to the 1%'s spokes-people on
corporate TV and radio than they do to voices of dissent - or spending time trying
to educate themselves about issues. This makes "the masses" very controllable by
those with the money to present their messages effectively. I gave up on anything
resembling true democracy ever coming to the US a long time ago - except perhaps
on the local level.


When I see deer in the woods, I think, They don't seem very concerned about the national debt,
inflation or unemployment levels. Not that I'm suggesting we should go graze or become
hunter-gatherers. It might be useful for us to remember though that it is the earth and
our fellow humans - not the government or the corporations - that provide our sustenance.

Focusing on changing these institutions is a way we validate their power.
Creating cooperative ways of making plans and decisions, managing our affairs and
coordinating our activities so as to meet our needs enables us to empower and free
ourselves from the thralldom of our present way of life.

CSummer

I agree completely, Clint, about the "need to build communities of mutual support as the basic elements of a cooperative society;" and the "need to de-commodify the meeting of human needs," I still maintain that it is the Banking System - and its "ownership" of the government, that is the main problem, holding us in thrall.

And while you may be absolutely correct that "the one thing we may actually have the power to do" may be "the building of Community;" (ergo) we may not actually have the power to change the "Banking System;" it is only so because of Ignorance and Apathy among the Masses on the score of what is really going on, and how the System really works; that is the cause for our collective powerlessness on this Score...

- Mark

[Iolchan]

CSummer wrote:

Thanks for your response, Mark. I must ask you to explain to me - and perhaps other readers - how it is that the national and international debt gives the 1% (bond holders) a choke-hold on the rest of us. I wonder if that is only true to the extent that we participate in their monetary system (i.e., fail to create our own alternative system). Anyway, if you could explain that without too much trouble - and without my having to do a lot of reading - I'd appreciate it. If I believed there is anything we could do about it - or if I better understood the nature of the problem (i.e., how it affects people like us) - I might be interested in making more of an effort myself to look into it.

iolchan wrote:

I still maintain that it is the Banking System - and its "ownership" of the government, that is the main problem, holding us in thrall.

CSummer wrote:

One definition I find for "thrall" is servitude or bondage. I don't understand how it is true that the banking system is holding us (you and me) in thrall, except to the extent that we seem to - or believe - we need their money in order to live. So, again, please explain.

I have been known to say: The problem isn't out there, and neither is the solution. If it is somewhere out there, then we are removed from it, and I don't see how we can resolve it. If, on the other hand, we see the problem as within and among us - in our way of life and our lack of mutually-supportive connectedness (i.e., community) - which arise from our view of ourselves, others and the world, then it becomes something we can address. It becomes something within our power to change or remedy.

Pardon the delay in my response. My internet service was out for the past four days and I could not respond.

The term 'Bond-holding class' is an old term; one that All of the old Radicals of the generation born before - or around - the turn of the last century were familiar with. It was a common term during the 1930's and practically everyone had the street-education to understand the nuances of meaning in the term. By the beginning of the twenty-first century, the dumbing-down of the masses had proceeded to the point that the meaning of the term has become somewhat mysterious. Now, however, we seem to be witnessing the rebirth of a form - hopefully an enlightened form - of Class-consciousness; for which I am grateful.

The 'bond-holding class' are the families who are the owners of the Money-Market - or Prime banks. They own the "preferred stock" - or the "CLASS A" stock of these Prime Banks, which in turn own the controlling stock in the Central Banks { e.g., the Federal Reserve Bank} which are privately-owned Joint-Stock corporations.

The 'bond-holding class' collectively own, and collect dividends on the interest-bearing assets of the Prime Banks. One of the most important parts of the portfolio of the Prime Banks, is their holdings of U.S. Treasury Securities; aka "bonds." {Not so co-incidentally, perhaps, akin to the word "bondage."} The bond-h0lding class collect quarterly dividends from the Interest that is generated from the enormous, ever-expanding national debt. The long version of this tale, with flow-charts - you may read here; or here.{on WaccoBB.}

Here, also, is a little Reality-check; the U.S. National Debt Clock.

And here is the National Debt Clock Widget.

You see, the important point to grasp about the National Debt, is that we don't really "owe it to ourselves" { Franklin Roosevelt's words} we owe it to Them - the owners of the Banks which are holding the T-Bills in their vaults. It is this class of blue-bloods, who have inherited the "preferred stock" of the Prime Banks, who are the "bond-holding class."

- Mark

[CSummer]

Many thanks for this, Mark. I found it interesting and informative. I still have at least one question -
maybe more.

What I get from this is that an enormous amount of money flows from the federal government to the
holders of US Treasury bonds. And this amount keeps increasing as the government's debt goes up
(and it's already some astronomical amount). The net effect is that there is less money available to
the "public sector" - at least on the federal level. So there is this constant flow from the public to
the private (corporate) sector, and it is probably concentrated at the highest levels of the latter.

It does sound like a rather crazy arrangement, though quite advantageous for those in positions of great
wealth and power. I won't speculate on how this came to be other than to guess that politicians don't
understand economics on the macro level, and they also don't like saying 'no' to their constituents who
want new programs and projects. In a sense, it seems like the corporate sector won in the old battle
between democratic and plutocratic control over the economy. This ensures that the government won't
be in a position to create so many jobs as to result in something approaching full employment - a situation
that is bad for business as it can increase the cost of labor.

(Am I correct in guessing that the federal government could just create money - the way the banks do -
to pay for new programs and projects and there would be no need to "borrow" it from the banks?)

To me, what this reveals is that we have a system designed by - and to serve the purposes of - the
ruling elite, who view the rest of us as having been put here to serve the structures they have created.
This view seems pervasive throughout our culture; it was even reflected in the famous lines from a
speech by John F Kennedy: "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your
country!" Yet no one questions what this "country" is that we're supposed to do something for. If the
"country" (e.g., the government, corporations, etc) isn't serving my and other people's needs, what is
its purpose for existence? My view is that people are more important than things - at least more
important than the things people create, no matter how large or powerful they may seem to be.
So the systems should be serving the people and not vice versa.

To return to the system that enriches a wealthy elite at the expense of the "people's government"
(and hence at the people's expense), I'm left with the question of how this keeps us - you, me and
the people we know - in thrall (bondage) to this elite. It seems to me this economic/monetary system
only affects us to the extent we participate in it, so it behooves us to create alternative systems so
we can meet our needs without depending on - and hence supporting and being subject to - those
corrupt and unjust systems.

I guess I'm coming from a strong sense that as long as we keep focusing on what has been and is not
working (except for the 1%), we will fail to create a society and economic system that enables all true
human needs to be met peacefully and sustainably. As long as we keep trying to have power in
institutions that have been designed to preclude our efforts to change them, we will only feed a
sense of powerlessness that is already pervasive in our culture. As long as these economic and
political structures appear to us as the only game in town, we can resign ourselves to being spectators.
If we want to be true players and not just pawns, we need to devise a new game that empowers all of us
rather than enabling the destructive habits of those who are addicted to power.

CSummer

Pardon the delay in my response. My internet service was out for the past four days and I could not respond.

The term 'Bond-holding class' is an old term; one that All of the old Radicals of the generation born before - or around - the turn of the last century were familiar with. It was a common term during the 1930's and practically everyone had the street-education to understand the nuances of meaning in the term. By the beginning of the twenty-first century, the dumbing-down of the masses had proceeded to the point that the meaning of the term has become somewhat mysterious. Now, however, we seem to be witnessing the rebirth of a form - hopefully an enlightened form - of Class-consciousness; for which I am grateful.

The 'bond-holding class' are the families who are the owners of the Money-Market - or Prime banks. They own the "preferred stock" - or the "CLASS A" stock of these Prime Banks, which in turn own the controlling stock in the Central Banks { e.g., the Federal Reserve Bank} which are privately-owned Joint-Stock corporations.

The 'bond-holding class' collectively own, and collect dividends on the interest-bearing assets of the Prime Banks. One of the most important parts of the portfolio of the Prime Banks, is their holdings of U.S. Treasury Securities; aka "bonds." {Not so co-incidentally, perhaps, akin to the word "bondage."} The bond-h0lding class collect quarterly dividends from the Interest that is generated from the enormous, ever-expanding national debt. The long version of this tale, with flow-charts - you may read here; or here.{on WaccoBB.}

Here, also, is a little Reality-check; the U.S. National Debt Clock.

And here is the National Debt Clock Widget.

You see, the important point to grasp about the National Debt, is that we don't really "owe it to ourselves" { Franklin Roosevelt's words} we owe it to Them - the owners of the Banks which are holding the T-Bills in their vaults. It is this class of blue-bloods, who have inherited the "preferred stock" of the Prime Banks, who are the "bond-holding class."

- Mark

[Iolchan]

CSummer wrote:

Many thanks for this, Mark. I found it interesting and informative. I still have at least one question - maybe more. What I get from this is that an enormous amount of money flows from the federal government to the holders of US Treasury bonds. And this amount keeps increasing as the government's debt goes up (and it's already some astronomical amount). The net effect is that there is less money available to the "public sector" - at least on the federal level. So there is this constant flow from the public to the private (corporate) sector, and it is probably concentrated at the highest levels of the latter.

Initially, the U.S. Treasury Bonds are sold to the Money Market Banks at Bond auctions conducted under the auspices of the Federal Open Market Committee, the Fed’s window on Wall Street. Under the current neo-feudal system Banks are empowered, by the franchise they receive from the government, to create money out of thin cyber-space, by multiplying their deposits {Other People’s Money} and creating credit. That is how the Banks buy T-Bills, at the F.O.M.C. bond auctions, and end up holding the government’s Debt-Paper.

At tax time, the money flows from the tax-payers -> to the I.R.S., -> to the Fed -> to the Prime Banks -> to the bond-holding class, in the form of quarterly dividends on that part of the portfolio of the Prime Banks that is held in tax-exempt U.S. Treasury Securities. Both the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and the Internal Revenue Service, the Fed’s Collection Agency, are registered as Delaware Corporations.

CSummer wrote:

It does sound like a rather crazy arrangement, though quite advantageous for those in positions of great wealth and power. I won't speculate on how this came to be other than to guess that politicians don't understand economics on the macro level, and they also don't like saying 'no' to their constituents who want new programs and projects. In a sense, it seems like the corporate sector won in the old battle between democratic and plutocratic control over the economy. This ensures that the government won't be in a position to create so many jobs as to result in something approaching full employment - a situation that is bad for business as it can increase the cost of labor.

Quite so.

CSummer wrote:

(Am I correct in guessing that the federal government could just create money - the way the banks do - to pay for new programs and projects and there would be no need to "borrow" it from the banks?)

Yes, the government can create money and spend it into circulation. This was proven to work during the Civil War, when Abraham Lincoln had the Treasury Department issue four hundred & forty-nine million dollars ($449,000,000) worth of interest-free, “Greenback” dollars.

The difference between the Federal Reserve Note, {which has a green back} and the Greenback Dollar of Abraham Lincoln, is that the Federal Reserve Note is an interest-bearing debt, inasmuch as it is “backed” by an interest-bearing U.S. Treasury Bond; and the Greenback Dollar is not.

The old Greenback Dollar is pure fiat money; backed by Faith alone – the sort of legal tender that Ron Paul, incidentally, is ideologically dead set against.

CSummer wrote:

To me, what this reveals is that we have a system designed by - and to serve the purposes of – the ruling elite, who view the rest of us as having been put here to serve the structures they have created. This view seems pervasive throughout our culture; it was even reflected in the famous lines from a speech by John F Kennedy: "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country!" Yet no one questions what this "country" is that we're supposed to do something for. If the "country" (e.g., the government, corporations, etc) isn't serving my and other people's needs, what is its purpose for existence? My view is that people are more important than things - at least more important than the things people create, no matter how large or powerful they may seem to be. So the systems should be serving the people and not vice versa

.
Again, amen.

CSummer wrote:

To return to the system that enriches a wealthy elite at the expense of the "people's government" (and hence at the people's expense), I'm left with the question of how this keeps us - you, me and the people we know - in thrall (bondage) to this elite. It seems to me this economic/ monetary system only affects us to the extent we participate in it, so it behooves us to create alternative systems so we can meet our needs without depending on - and hence supporting and being subject to – those corrupt and unjust systems.

As long as “we” – the 99% - continue participate in paying income taxes (which are promptly funneled by the I.R.S. & the Fed towards servicing the interest on the National Debt,) the bond-holding class will continue to get their cut out of the fiscal pie. That is how they hold us in thrall.

For the present, in order to legally pull out this dead end system, the individual “taxpayer” must learn the fine art of becoming a “non-taxpayer.” One way to diminish one’s taxable “income” is by earning less “money” in the form of Federal Reserve Notes; and more “money” of the sorts you have mentioned in this thread: e.g., in a mutual credit system, such as a Local Exchange Trading System (LETS) or a Community Exchange System, for instance… Here are a few other tips:

Wages, earned on an hourly basis, are not properly, Income; and hence, not >currently< taxable. This will change, if Mitt Romney gets in, and implements his "flat tax" scheme. Money made in the stock market is “income.” If you are licensed by the state or work for the government on any level, that is also defined as “income.” Money made by renting or leasing out property, is also defined as “income.”

In order to “create alternative systems so we can meet our needs” we must have Land -Earth- to live upon, cultivate, and be fed by. And, in the present, in order to pay land taxes, we must have and use Federal Reserve Notes. Land taxes are legitimate. But, none of us personally, consciously, or wittingly, ever signed on to the task of {nor should we properly be liable for} paying the Interest on the enormous, ever-expanding National / International Debt. Thus, we find ourselves in the position of paying out on a contract that we personally did not sign up for. That is Fraud, pure and simple.

It seems the best policy for We, the Plebes, is collectively, to repudiate the National Debt, and refuse to pay a further dime towards it out of our own pockets. The people must realize that the National Debt is a Fraudulent, and an Illegitimate entity.

Mitt Romney, in the service of the bond-holding class, and to service the Interest on the Debt, would fix upon the People a “flat-tax” scheme – the most regressive kind of tax of all. Therefore, the time to engage in tax-resistance is in the Present, Now... Let’s Make 2012 Our Year of Jubilee.

CSummer wrote:

I guess I'm coming from a strong sense that as long as we keep focusing on what has been and is not working (except for the 1%), we will fail to create a society and economic system that enables all true human needs to be met peacefully and sustainably. As long as we keep trying to have power in institutions that have been designed to preclude our efforts to change them, we will only feed a sense of powerlessness that is already pervasive in our culture. As long as these economic and political structures appear to us as the only game in town, we can resign ourselves to being spectators. If we want to be true players and not just pawns, we need to devise a new game that empowers all of us rather than enabling the destructive habits of those who are addicted to power.

CSummer

Amen.

Mark Walter Evans

[phredo]

Great thread! A question and a comment:

Given that Ron Paul is both against fiat currency and fractional reserve lending, how do he and fellow thinkers think the countriy's money supply would be increased as needed? Would prices just fluctuate against the gold held by the government with no new money being created, or what?

Paul Zarlenga's bill seems to have a good compromise between issuing more debt and simply repudiating the debt, which latter would be a hard sell and would also be unfair to people who had bought bonds in good faith. As federal debt becomes due, it would never be rolled over into new debt; instead it would just be paid off in new government issued money. That way there's nothing for a creditor to complain about, and the problem withers away over a few years period, which also has the benefit of a more gradual transition in general to the new system.

[Iolchan]

Phredo, in answer to your question,

phredo wrote:

Given that Ron Paul is both against fiat currency and fractional reserve lending, how do he and fellow thinkers think the country's money supply would be increased as needed? Would prices just fluctuate against the gold held by the government with no new money being created, or what?

I found the following document on the Internet, dated Friday, September 26, 2003. I can not vouch for the source, a certain Mr. Eastman, but what he says is very interesting.

REP. Ron Paul exposed as fake populist


RON PAUL ENDORSES PRO CREDITOR-CLASS, PRO-SUPER-
RICH, TIGHT-MONEY "DEFLATIONIST" ECONOMICS

His anti-Federal Reserve stance is a fraud. Ron Paul is a creditor-class serving "deflationist" -- calling for tightening of interest rates "to fight inflation."

Ron Paul decries low interest rates - forced upon Greenspan to stave of collapse and to re-elect the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-Perle-Kissinger team in the White House.

But these low interest rates afford relief to the debtor class (i.e. everyone but the rich) -- and they are hardly enough to bring real relief from the crushing debt caused by the Fed's past deflationary "inflation-fighting" tight-money policies.

Ron Paul says that the Fed is engaging in inflationary policies -- when that is far from the truth.

The people's money is checkbook deposits and currency - with shortfalls covered by credit card and mortgage debt - an ever increasing spiral of debt. This peoples money (currency and demand deposits) is called M1. The people have been starved of this kind of money forcing a certain amount of new debt to be inflicted on that class of earners regardless of whatever thrift or budgeting them engage in -- there just isn't money enough to pay for what people consume in the money that is available to pay out for work done -- the goods come from overseas on a credit basis.

Ron Paul says that there is inflation!!! And that therefore steps should be taken to reign in the growth of M1 (when people have to pay back less in interest to the financial sector that causes growth in the amount of M1 in circulation)!!!

But it is not M1 that is growing! It is M3 -- which is tight M1 plus the other broad transactions that the financial elites use for their international transactions -- and this money is not reigned in by Fed deflationary policy, by lower interest rates on bank mortgage and home-improvement loan and small-business loan credit. It is only the latter things that are squeezed by FED deflation (i.e., by so-called anti-inflationary policies, by high-interest rates)


RON PAUL IS CALLING ON THE FED TO SQUEEZE THE MIDDLE CLASS IN THEIR LOWER-LEVEL "M1 LOOP", WHEREAS THE BOOM AND EASY MONEY FLOWS ARE ALL OCCURRING IN THE OVERNIGHT CD'S, THE REPO AGREEMENTS, THE EURODOLLARS, ETC., THAT THE ELITES ENJOY USING IN AN UNREGULATED ENVIRONMENT.


Ron Paul is spewing poison to the middle class when he argues the lies of deflationism!! Remember, the pensions have been decimated by crooked high-finance (Greenspans and Ron Paul's elite buddies and relatives) – THE IOU'S ARE NOW HELD BY THE SUPER RICH IN THEIR BOND PORTFOLIOS -- CORPORATIONS HAVE LIGHTENED UP ON PENSIONS (THROUGH MERGERS, REORGANIZATIONS, DOWNSIZING ETC.)

AND TIGHT MONEY - DEFLATION - IS ALWAYS WHAT THE CREDITOR CLASS (THE HOLDERS OF THE IOU'S) WANT -- THIS WAS THE SOURCE OF THE FIGHT FOR FREE SILVER BETWEEN POPULISTS AND ROBBER BARONS IN THE LATE 1800'S, THIS WAS THE REASON FOR CREATING THE FEDERAL RESERVE IN 1913!!! WHEN THERE IS INFLATION THE WORKING PEOPLE ALWAYS HAVE TO PAY BACK THEIR DEBTS WITH DOLLARS THAT TAKE LONGER TO EARN, THAT YOU MUST WORK HARDER TO EARN, DOLLARS THAT BUY LESS THAN WHAT DOLLARS BOUGHT ON THE DAY THE LOAN PAPERS WERE SIGNED.

Rep. Ron Paul is a phony -- he is a stooge of the money power, disguised as a reformer! The Federal Reserve Act was peddled by frauds exactly like Ron Paul!

Ron Paul is an impossibility. He talks one way -- always in a lost cause -- because the elite knows that that is what we want to hear, what is the truth -- and so Ron Paul becomes our trusted spokesman, when all the time he is a two-faced traitor!

Ron Paul says: This increase in the money supply ultimately causes price inflation, despite the government's claims.

Eastman says: Price inflation is never a threat - because it cannot take off unless deliberately planned and induced by increasing the money supply in open market operations and adjusting the discount rate. Inflation never "runs away". Ron Paul calling for tighter money supply will merely strangle and increase the debt burden upon the working classes (middle and lower) - but will not touch the spending by the corporations and government and the super rich on their ventures (war, new super factories in China,
ownership of international land and capital etc.).

Ron Paul says: The Fed's inflationary policies hurt older people the most. Seniors generally rely on fixed incomes from pensions and Social Security, along with their savings. Inflation destroys the buying power of their fixed income and savings.

Eastman says: Ron Paul neglects to say who the lower interest rates help! People looking for jobs. People earning income. People who want to build. People who want to reduce debt. Ron Paul is lying through his teeth when he suggests that the American people, of any age group, have significant savings. We are being crushed under a mountain of growing debt -- the indebtedness of us and our children to the financial elite and their children -- to the creditor class of Rockefellers, Harrimans, Morgans Murdoch, Soros -- you know the names -- the top few percent of the population -- who are getting five tax breaks anyway!!! Ron Paul is being a disingenuous louse when he attempts to hold out our aged hostage in order to get higher interest rates for the creditor class.

Ron Paul is wrong. Inflation from creating to much money going after too few goods is not the problem. We have an economic pie -- and too much of it is going to buy wars, wars on terror, security at airports, missiles and bombs to replace missiles and bombs dropped on innocent countries, money for spooks, money for a police state, money to for Halliburton and Bechtel to rebuild the nations we have reduced to ruin etc. We don't need to raise interest rates to improve the return tot he bond holding class at our expense -- we need to change the content of the economic pie – we have to revamp the bakery to make more butter and fewer guns so that there will be more on the shelf of the public to buy (that WE MAKE, not that we buy from abroad on credit.)

Don't let any populist ever bring up the name Ron Paul as anything but a vile accomplice in the plunder of America by the financial elites. He is a fraud and no longer deserves the support of any decent American.

I repudiate all past endorsements of Rep. Ron Paul.

Here is my essay detailing the workings of the scam that Ron Paul is helping perpetuate. It teaches you the quantity theory of money, but it also shows you that there are two loops of circulation -- the common people's economy, based on loan credit (checkbook money etc., i.e., M1) kept in near permanent deflationary bust -- and the elite loop of elite moneys that know no restrictions and flow in near-permanent "boom" for the privileged. It shows how we are being farmed by the financial community (which includes the private Federal Reserve) for the sake of criminal elites who have taken over the system and pretend to be rendering a public service as the rig the game to continuously shear us and milk us dry.

After reading this, go on to the other articles showing you what real populist economics is. Someday this information will be important. Get ready.

[phredo]

Thanks, Mark. I "know" (putting it in quotation marks means "I think I know") from watching Bill Still's "The Secret of Oz" and reading about the Zarlenga-Kucinich bill that linking currency to a gold standard, which seems to be basically what Paul wants, usually is deflationary and that deflation tends to hurt most working people (in earlier times I guess it was the small farmers who couldn't charge enough for their product because there just wasn't enough money in circulation) and benefit creditors, who get paid off in money which can buy more than before the deflation.

Before I go on, I want to mention that I don't share your highly negative view of Paul as a "fraud", "stooge", "phony", etc. I disagree with many of his positions, but I think he's sincere and forthright. I plan to vote for him in the Republican primary (I'm currently registered Green and will probably vote Green in the general election), because I think his views on the alarmingly fascist direction the US is going in will be an important foil in debates with the chief executive of our burgeoning police/warfare state. If all he were was "a stooge of the money power, disguised as a reformer," how come the capitalist media and pacs are not backing him but instead are doing everything possible to ridicule and defeat him?

I like the Still-Zarlenga-Kucinich approach: end fractional reserve banking, print fiat money, and spend it on schools, roads, and so forth. I expect hard times ahead, and these measures would be a way to spread the remaining wealth rather than put taxpayers deeper in debt, and all through a reasonably simple and easy to understand law that could be passed tomorrow if there were enough votes in Congress, without requiring everyone to accept some new barter system, regional currency, or other pie-in-the-sky scheme.

Back to my question: why does Paul, as a gold standard supporting deflationist, rail against the Fed and the practice of "fractional reserve" banking? How does ending that practice fit into his gold standard plans?

Fred Wolters

[Iolchan]

phredo wrote:

Thanks, Mark. I "know" (putting it in quotation marks means "I think I know") from watching Bill Still's "The Secret of Oz" and reading about the Zarlenga-Kucinich bill that linking currency to a gold standard, which seems to be basically what Paul wants, usually is deflationary and that deflation tends to hurt most working people (in earlier times I guess it was the small farmers who couldn't charge enough for their product because there just wasn't enough money in circulation) and benefit creditors, who get paid off in money which can buy more than before the deflation.

Before I go on, I want to mention that I don't share your highly negative view of Paul as a "fraud", "stooge", "phony", etc. I disagree with many of his positions, but I think he's sincere and forthright. I plan to vote for him in the Republican primary (I'm currently registered Green and will probably vote Green in the general election), because I think his views on the alarmingly fascist direction the US is going in will be an important foil in debates with the chief executive of our burgeoning police/warfare state. If all he were was "a stooge of the money power, disguised as a reformer," how come the capitalist media and pacs are not backing him but instead are doing everything possible to ridicule and defeat him?

I like the Still-Zarlenga-Kucinich approach: end fractional reserve banking, print fiat money, and spend it on schools, roads, and so forth. I expect hard times ahead, and these measures would be a way to spread the remaining wealth rather than put taxpayers deeper in debt, and all through a reasonably simple and easy to understand law that could be passed tomorrow if there were enough votes in Congress, without requiring everyone to accept some new barter system, regional currency, or other pie-in-the-sky scheme.

Back to my question: why does Paul, as a gold standard supporting deflationist, rail against the Fed and the practice of "fractional reserve" banking? How does ending that practice fit into his gold standard plans?

Fred Wolters

The Zarlenga-Kucinich Bill is good medicine - as is my ain Amendment XVIII, which cam to me as a poet would conceive a poem, or Mozart or Bach would receive a Sonata or a Concerto = as a whole entity= a tiny little pea, in a beam o' light, cam down frae the aether, in the mind's eye.

And please, I am neither the author of, nor am I in complete resonance with the harsh words that this certain Mr. Eastman, {whom I quoted above} sprach about poor Mr. Ron Paul. I just thought that Eastman's economic analysis was worth repeating - especially his analysis of the role of M1 and M3 in the economy, and how the bond-holding class profit from deflation, and keep M1 quite constricted. That is spot on... And full o' Truth.

Now, whether that makes Ron Paul the villain Mr. Eastman makes him out to be - or not - I am not the Judge of, you see. Perhaps Rep. Ron Paul is merely the stooge of his economic adviser, Lew Rockwell, who, as I wrote above, "is adamantly opposed to the very Idea that any State >read, government< should have the power to create "fiat money."" If Ron Paul - or any other candidate - were to come out for Amendment XXVIII, I'd not only vote for him; I'd work for him, too.

And to answer your Question; Q."How come the capitalist media and pacs are not backing him but instead are doing everything possible to ridicule and defeat him?" A. : It is quite obvious that the horse of Choice is Mitt Romney; but that still doesn't preclude the need of the establishment to allow a dark horse like Ron Paul to run; so as to maintain the appearance and illusion that we actually have choices; and also, to let off Steam...{Pressure in the System.}

Ron Paul does have one good Idea about hard money/commodity money, {coins,} that I gleaned from his book, END THE FED; and I am in complete agreement with it: It is that Gold and Silver coins should be minted by the Treasury that are not tied to the "dollar" but rather, are issued as weights; e.g. : one ounce, one half ounce, one quarter ounce, etc.

That's a position that the elder Lindbergh also held about money - but he wanted there to be Greenbacks, as well. Ron Paul doesn't want that. He wants instead to "end all legal tender laws" {the theoretical power of government to monetize paper.} And he said so; in his book.

That's the wind-up; Here's the Pitch:

Why We Need Amendment XVIII, Now


Amendment XVIII does several things that are timely:

Amendment XXVIII Re-Asserts the Constitutional principle that Congress – the Representatives of We, the People - should control, and be the ultimate Arbiter over the Creation of Money and Credit.

Amendment XXVIII Nationalizes the private ownership of the Federal Reserve Bank, and subsumes the creative functions of that institution into the Treasury Department, creating a Sub-Treasury “Common-Wealth Central Bank” - to be established and dedicated to the Interest of the People – not Wall Street.

Amendment XXVIII Also authorizes Congress to recall the National Debt, and transforms, by Congressional Fiat, the fraudulent “National Debt,” held by prime banks in the form of U.S. Treasury Securities, into an actual National Blessing in the form of billions of Dollars of “Common-Wealth” to be deposited in the New “Common-Wealth, Central Bank” by recalling, and transforming the U.S. Treasury Bonds, by Fiat, into a new, non-interest-bearing, dollar-denominated credit instrument: the “National Credit-Receipt.”

Amendment XXVIII cleans out the Augean Stables of the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve Bank, and opens the Books, Documents, and Records of those Institutions to the minutest Public Scrutiny. Amendment XXVIII also asserts “…there shall be no further issues of Treasury Securities, or Bonds.”

Amendment XXVIII opens, once again, the Treasury Mints to the free coinage of silver and gold. The new Commodity Money coins shall be stamped with their weight and fineness, not denominated in terms of “Dollars.”

Borrowing a page from the Articles of Confederation, Amendment XXVIII grants, once again, to the State Governments the power to create Credit within their own jurisdictions. This will be of great help to the infrastructure and to Health, Education, and Welfare within the fifty states. And it will serve the Interest of the People; though it displease the banking elites and their minions.

Since State governments are empowered to grant charters to State Banks, which enable these Banks to create Credit, States also should be empowered to Create, with the stroke of a pen, sufficient Credit within their own jurisdictions to assist Human needs.

If Amendment XXVIII intended only to restore a lawful system of Constitutional money - with Fiat Treasury Bills replacing the interest-bearing debts known as "Federal Reserve Notes," then indeed, no Amendment would be necessary. The Constitution already provides Congress with the power to issue such notes as interest-free money. Also, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Julliard v. Greenman (110 U.S. 421, 448) in 1884 ruled that: “Congress is authorized to establish a national currency, either in coins or in paper, and to make that currency lawful money for all purposes, as regards the national government or private individuals.” {A broad interpretation of Article I, Section 8, clause 5, of the Constitution.}

An elegant solution, Amendment XVIII, also Nationalizes the National Debt; and transforms the Treasury Department into a Treasury of Common-wealth; and fills the coffers of this new institution with billions and billions of "dollars" of Credit & establishes a new specie of credit-instrument, a dollar-denominated "National Credit Receipt" to be just as serviceable as “Dollars” on the international market.

Amendment XVIII makes a distinction between the U.S. Savings Bonds that were purchased by Ma and Pa bond investors and those U.S. Treasury Securities that were purchased by the Prime Banks at Bond Auctions held under the auspices of the Federal Open Market Committee, the Federal Reserve’s Window on Wall Street. Commercial Banks have always utilized the “multiplier” of the fractional reserve system to purchase U.S. Treasury Securities at cents on the dollar.

In recognition of this Fact - that such transactions are, and have always been, from the beginning, Fraudulent - AMENDMENT XVIII renders the outstanding “Debt” that is “owed” to the Prime Banks of this – and every other Nation - at a mere 7% [Seven per cent] of the face value of such Fraudulent, Banker-secured paper “Debt.”

This reduction of the Debt to a Sum that is payable in Credit, on the Books of the new Sub- Treasury Central Bank-of-Issue, the “Common-Wealth Central Bank” is, in Reality, exceedingly fair and Just, in recognition of the Fraud that has been committed by the Community of International bankers, in foisting the former system upon the unsuspecting Public.

Thus, AMENDMENT XVIII allows a large amount of Credit to be created on the books of the new Common-Wealth Central Bank - as compensation for that portion of the investment of the Banks in the National Debt, that might actually be deemed ‘legitimate.” This gives the Prime Banks some Credit - but no Stock - in the new Institution.

The aggregate effect of these Reforms is to establish an Institution that benefits All Americans - and not just the small elite who were fortunate to inherit the right stock in certain Wall Street Money Market Banks.

Amendment XXVIII dissolves the Federal Reserve Bank into the United States Treasury Department, and subsumes the creative, credit-creation function of the Federal Reserve into the new Sub-Treasury "Common-Wealth Central Bank." Henceforth, the Treasury shall not be compelled to issue interest-bearing Treasury Securities to "back" all of the paper "dollars" that the Federal Reserve currently issues. Instead, the Treasury shall issue non-interest-bearing Treasury notes, as Abraham Lincoln and John Fitzgerald Kennedy were able, for a short time, to do.

Significantly, Amendment XXVIII also grants the fifty States the power to create credit within their own sovereign jurisdictions, to meet their crushing deficit burdens, instead of having to float endless bond issues and borrow more "money" at interest from banks and investors of the bond-holding class. The Articles of Confederation, drafted by the revolutionary Continental Congress of 1777, allowed the States this power - and it should be restored to the several States, in order for there to be a healthy society in North America.

Thus, Clause 9 reads: "Furthermore, it amends and modifies Article I, Section 10, clause 1, to empower State Treasuries to create [a limited amount of] non-inflationary Credit, in the form of check-book money in order to meet the pressing needs of the States."

Sincerely,

Mark Walter Evans,
Hood Mountain,
California

Attached Files

• Adams.-.The.Legalized.Crime.of.Banking.and.a.Constitutional.Remedy.1958-1.pdf (454.0 KB )
• PatmanPrimerOnMoney.pdf (68.5 KB )
• Banking-and-Currency-and-the-Money-Trust-by-Minesota-Congressman-Charles-a-Lindbergh-Sr.pdf (579.0 KB )