The Secret of Oz - Money 101

18 posts / 0 new

The Secret of Oz - Money 101

This is a very good documentary mostly on the history of money as it builds up to the subordinate theme of interpreting the "The Wizard of Oz" book as a monetary reform movement allegory. Good arguments are presented against the gold money standard--it doesn't matter what is used to back money--gold or silver--but the secret is who controls the quantity of money. The video ends with a very up to date explanation of the current banking bailout crisis and manipulation of debt. The video argues for public government banks that issue money without debt citing the 90 year old North Dakota debt free banks (based on the Swedish nonprofit public banks) and Iceland's public banks before being privatized. Iceland's private debt banks took over the public banks and created Ice Save bank which turned out to have laundered money for the Russian mafia then collapsed and landing the Iceland economy into a severe debt banking crisis.

The corrupt American Wall Street banking monopolies will never be reformed by the Democrats or Republicans so the only remedy is for states to create their own local banks to loan to themselves without interests and spend into the state economies.

I think California could create a public non-debt bank backed by citizen silver deposits. However, it isn't what backs the money, but who controls the quantity of money the ultimately matters.

The banks don't care that their debt peons protest while Wall Street loots the national treasury and strips the last remaining wealth of the middle class. At this very moment the electoral voting system is being rigged for establishing one party rule by the Republican oligarchs.

Americans need to go for Wall Street's jugular--reform the monetary system by turning from private bank debt extortion and going instead to direct government issued debt free money in the form of public utility banks. Break the private banking monopolies!

Antifascist's picture
Antifascist
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Comments

Always has been that the best way to rob a bank is to own one. Money is economic energy, it is not wealth. Banks should be public utilities just as we should have public power. Once again, you said it.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm

Here! Here! and imagine the savings to the taxpayer when we don't have to pay the banks the interest on that debt! Take a look at the Chicago Plan, the recent report that came out of the IMF. I've sited it here too many times. The Chicago Plan Revisited by J Benes and M. Kumhof, an IMF Working Paper. Imagine that, the IMF! It is thru the control of the money supply that the big banks have become the power brokers of this age, richer than nations, subverting representative government and financing the corporate dominance of the planet and its nations with their profiteering agenda that leaves nothing in the commons, not even water, or air, nor even the creatures of the sea.

hans nel
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

State owned banks are bonanzas.

When N. Dakota needs financing for a really big project, like a new bridge...it can simply borrow from itself (using fractional reserve banking) and pay itself back. In effect, free financing.

Added bonuses: low interest rates to businesses within the state, and annual contributions to the State Treasury. It functions as a public utility and has successfully done so for nearly a century.

The state deposits its tax receipts in the state-owned bank instead of in a New York Casino. N. Dakota money stays in N. Dakota

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Government Money Masters: Anti-Gold Videos that Thousands of Tea Party Voters Think Are Conservative

Gary North
Oct. 6, 2011

The conservative movement is filled with well-meaning people who do not understand free market economic theory. They believe that they hold to free market economics, but they in fact hold to a crude Keynesianism: economic salvation by fiat money.

Inside the conservative movement for over a century has been a hard-core cadre of left-wing promoters of big government. They present themselves as enemies of fractional reserve banking. They use this to get a hearing for their cure-all for banking: a fiat money monopoly that is completely managed by tenured, unaccountable bureaucrats operating under the authority of Congress.

These people are part of a movement called Greenbackism. It has been around ever since the 1870s. Back then, American Greenbackers had their own political party. They merged with the left-wing Populist Party in the mid-1880s. You can read about the Greenback Party on Wikipedia.

The Greenback Party (also known as the Independent Party, the National Party, and the Greenback-Labor Party) was an American political party with an anti-monopoly ideology that was active between 1874 and 1884. Its name referred to paper money, or "greenbacks," that had been issued during the American Civil War and afterward. The party opposed the shift from paper money back to a bullion coin-based monetary system because it believed that privately owned banks and corporations would then reacquire the power to define the value of products and labor. It also condemned the use of militias and private police against union strikes. Conversely, they believed that government control of the monetary system would allow it to keep more currency in circulation, as it had in the war. This would better foster business and assist farmers by raising prices and making debts easier to pay.

Back then, Greenbackers were openly inflationist. They wanted city dwellers to pay farmers more for food than the free market established. They wanted city dwellers to pay more than free market competition established for wages. They wanted the U.S. government to compel these price increases by printing paper money.

Ever since the passage of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913, Greenbackers have attempted to conceal their left-wing platform in order to infiltrate the conservative movement. They have used their hostility to fractional reserve banking as a cloak. What they really want is money officially run by Congress, whether Republican or Democrat. This is why they have always hated money that is redeemable in gold. The government cannot inflate the money supply very much if money is redeemable at a fixed price for gold.

Why do conservatives swallow this witches' brew of statism and inflation? Because they do not understand monetary theory. On monetary theory, they are Keynesians. They believe what Ben Bernanke believes: that it is possible to avoid inflation, avoid recession, and attain economic growth by having a committee of experts decide how much money to print. The Chicago School economists (monetarists) think the same thing. The debate is about who decides how much money to create after Congress has set up the committee of experts.

Congress today is legally in charge of the Federal Reserve System's Board of Governors. It is only indirectly in control of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), which is made up of a mixture of Board members (government appointed) and regional Federal Reserve Bank presidents (privately appointed by regional bankers). In fact, Congress is not in control. The FOMC is in control.

Because the implementation of U.S. law is always by the executive branch -- this is federalism -- all calls for Congress to control money are really calls for committees appointed by the President to control money. But, ever since 1883, employees of the executive branch have been protected from being fired. This was the Civil Service law. So, whenever anyone calls for Congress to control money, he is calling for an independent committee operating under the President to control money. This is what the Constitution provides: a separation of powers. The Civil Service Act began the separation of politics from government: rule by tenured bureaucrats.

Greenbackers do not openly discuss this Constitutional issue. They never have. They invoke the word "Congress," yet ever since 1883, this has meant "a committee made up of bureaucrats appointed by a President, ratified by the Senate, but operationally independent of both."

Greenbackers call this monetary system sovereign money. It means "money created by bureaucrats who possess the power of the U.S. government, yet who are operationally independent of the government because of Civil Service protection."

I have written a book against one of these promoters, Gertrude Coogan. You can download it for free here.

I have created a department to refute another one, Ellen Brown. You can access it here: http://www.garynorth.com/public/department141.cfm.

The books by Brown and Coogan have been the most popular Greenback books. But books are not the main sources of recruiting by Greenbackers. Videos are.

The first video is called The Money Masters. The narrator is Bill Still. Mr. Still has written no books. He has not published scholarly articles on economic theory. There is no Wikipedia entry for him. Compared to Bill Still, the Rothschilds are publicity hounds. He has not addressed the issue of Civil Service protection for his proposed government money masters. Part 1 is here.

LysanderSpooner's picture
LysanderSpooner
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

You do realize that for four hundred years, the fiat money of England was notched sticks, don't you? It was one of the most prosperous times in English history. They were called chits.

Rome issued cheap copper coins...in a quantity sufficient to buy/sell what was capable of being produced. It didn't borrow a dime. When it switched to gold, there wasn't enough in existence for economic functioning.

A sensible use of any money, gold, paper or dog poop, is controlling the quanity issued so it is equal to and does not exceed the production of goods/services.

Probably insisting we borrow non-existent money through fractional reserve banking so we can print it is rather stupid. Interest payments require adding even more money to the money supply to pay the lousy interest.

Sovereign nations, when they simply created any fiat money in quantities for optimum economic functioning did well. Natons that don't retain that control over their money supply don't.

Fractional areserve banking would work just fine IF banks were publically owned. Government could control the money supply by raising/lowering reserve requirements. When private borrowing wasn't sufficient to maintain a functioning money supply, it could simply spend it into existence.

With the current system, banksters would howl in protest. Banks are the only shareholders in the Fed. The Pres. appoints the head from their list of nominees. Don't expect banksters to regulate their own income. They'll issue as many loans of non-existent money as the fractional reserve quota will allow...especially to the federal government.

The past 75 years of private banking has given us a major depression, a current economic downturn headed in the same direction, and twelve downturns in-between. It's inherently unstable.

Europe is falling to its knees with it. Same privatized monetary system. Europe is, afterall, where it began.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Its our privatized monetary system that's the problem, not fiat currency. Doesn't matter what backs it up or if its backed at all. What matters is if its debt money or public currency, yes, sovereign money, real money, not debt created by the private banks type money, like we have now. The greenback was the money Lincoln issued to pay for the Civil War. L. Spooner seems to think the big banking corporations are going to take good care of us. Oh, yea? You mean like they just did? The big banks are going to take care of us. They really care about you and me. Just let em finish turing that last batch of widows out in the snow. Then they'll come and "take care of us." Right.

hans nel
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote hans nel:

Its our privatized monetary system that's the problem, not fiat currency.

Our money system is not private.

Quote hans nel:

Doesn't matter what backs it up or if its backed at all. What matters is if its debt money or public currency, yes, sovereign money, real money, not debt created by the private banks type money, like we have now.

Neither is real money. Real money is whatever the people voluntarily agree upon.

Quote hans nel:

The greenback was the money Lincoln issued to pay for the Civil War.

Lincoln didn't pay for the Civil War. It was payed for by the people through higher prices. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

Quote hans nel:

L. Spooner seems to think the big banking corporations are going to take good care of us. Oh, yea? You mean like they just did? The big banks are going to take care of us. They really care about you and me. Just let em finish turing that last batch of widows out in the snow. Then they'll come and "take care of us." Right.

Actually, quite the opposite. The current system is supported by big banking corporations. What I support, separating banking and State, is vehemently opposed by the big banks.

LysanderSpooner's picture
LysanderSpooner
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote polycarp2:

You do realize that for four hundred years, the fiat money of England was notched sticks, don't you? It was one of the most prosperous times in English history. They were called chits.

Rome issued cheap copper coins...in a quantity sufficient to buy/sell what was capable of being produced. It didn't borrow a dime. When it switched to gold, there wasn't enough in existence for economic functioning.

A sensible use of any money, gold, paper or dog poop, is controlling the quanity issued so it is equal to and does not exceed the production of goods/services.

Probably insisting we borrow non-existent money through fractional reserve banking so we can print it is rather stupid. Interest payments require adding even more money to the money supply to pay the lousy interest.

Sovereign nations, when they simply created any fiat money in quantities for optimum economic functioning did well. Natons that don't retain that control over their money supply don't.

Fractional areserve banking would work just fine IF banks were publically owned. Government could control the money supply by raising/lowering reserve requirements. When private borrowing wasn't sufficient to maintain a functioning money supply, it could simply spend it into existence.

With the current system, banksters would howl in protest. Banks are the only shareholders in the Fed. The Pres. appoints the head from their list of nominees. Don't expect banksters to regulate their own income. They'll issue as many loans of non-existent money as the fractional reserve quota will allow...especially to the federal government.

The past 75 years of private banking has given us a major depression, a current economic downturn headed in the same direction, and twelve downturns in-between. It's inherently unstable.

Europe is falling to its knees with it. Same privatized monetary system. Europe is, afterall, where it began.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

To call our system private is really a stretch of the English language.

LysanderSpooner's picture
LysanderSpooner
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Probably, when the entire money supply other than coins is borrowed into existence...through fractional reserve banking.... from private banking...we have a privatized monetary system.

Borrowing non-existent money so we can print it puts private interests in charge of the monetary system. Government doesn't borrow money from banks...it borrows the permission to print it.

Perhaps you don't understand how the privatized monetary system functions: Animated video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0K5_JE_gOys

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Money does not exist. its a complex set of contracts, a very large group of agreements. That's all. Do you want to pay the banks for this sevice or do you want to agree to do it co-operatively? Let's do it co-operatively.

hans nel
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote polycarp2:

You do realize that for four hundred years, the fiat money of England was notched sticks, don't you? It was one of the most prosperous times in English history. They were called chits.

Rome issued cheap copper coins...in a quantity sufficient to buy/sell what was capable of being produced. It didn't borrow a dime. When it switched to gold, there wasn't enough in existence for economic functioning.

A sensible use of any money, gold, paper or dog poop, is controlling the quanity issued so it is equal to and does not exceed the production of goods/services.

Probably insisting we borrow non-existent money through fractional reserve banking so we can print it is rather stupid. Interest payments require adding even more money to the money supply to pay the lousy interest.

Sovereign nations, when they simply created any fiat money in quantities for optimum economic functioning did well. Natons that don't retain that control over their money supply don't.

Fractional areserve banking would work just fine IF banks were publically owned. Government could control the money supply by raising/lowering reserve requirements. When private borrowing wasn't sufficient to maintain a functioning money supply, it could simply spend it into existence.

With the current system, banksters would howl in protest. Banks are the only shareholders in the Fed. The Pres. appoints the head from their list of nominees. Don't expect banksters to regulate their own income. They'll issue as many loans of non-existent money as the fractional reserve quota will allow...especially to the federal government.

The past 75 years of private banking has given us a major depression, a current economic downturn headed in the same direction, and twelve downturns in-between. It's inherently unstable.

Europe is falling to its knees with it. Same privatized monetary system. Europe is, afterall, where it began.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

Dog poop would not be the feces of choice.These could be considered.

The number 10 species is interesting, it's called a little Dodo, so Dodo doo-doo is the specie's feces of choice [just for the fun of it] Commodities traders going long on feces or short [depending on the grain commodity, fiber ya know]. It could have a place in the anniversary celebration menu of rare commodities. Silver anniversry, gold anniversary, 3D anniversary. [doo-doo counts as 2 Ds, Dodo only 1]

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I am not advising anyone to close their bank accounts because a bank account is needed to pay bills and cash checks. However, one can minimized any potential loss of account money by keeping a minimum of operating funds in the account. The Wall Street and Washington D.C gangsters have already changed the law so that bank customers are unsecured creditors meaning you get paid last if any money is left over after another bank failure. See video below:

Can the FDIC Protect Your Money from Another Crash?

Antifascist's picture
Antifascist
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Well at that point we should be "burning down the house."

captbebops's picture
captbebops
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Interesting video. I'm glad to see it explained in a simple, concise manner . I've been warning about such an event for some time. I'd really prefer not to see myself proven correct again.

Obama did promise that government wouldn't make another bailout. Tag, you're it if you have a bank account. You'll do the bailing with your own bank account, like it or not. Think you're having trouble paying the mortgage now? Wait a bit.

The global economic output is $70 trillion. Money thrown by banksters into "investing" into $700 trillions in paper...on credit.... is essentially an investment in smoke. An investment in nothing. The entire global economy produces nothing to back it. Not enough money on the planet to bail it when the derivative bets go bad again...including private bank accounts.

I've been suggesting a merging of economic, environment and resource collapse is in the works. Perhaps when bank accounts get confiscated, some, at least, will sit up and take notice.

Cyprus was the trial run.

The several century run of private banking vs. national treasuries/mints is coming to an ignoble end.

N. Dakota, with its state-owned bank will be the least effected, though the state will still be at the effects of the economic collapse of the rest of the country. Internal N. Dakota trade and governments will do fine. Anything connected to external trade with other states will be in the doldrums....unless other states quickly set up public banking on the N. Dakota model. International trade will grind to a halt.

Other states/localities should take a cue from that.

The question isn't "If it happens"...but when.

It wouldn't surprise me if N. Dakota declared independence in that scenario. Severe economic collapses of nation-states tend to see them break into smaller pieces. National governments lose their resources to object. They do well to manage the civil discord in the areas that remain tied to them.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

http://www.amazon.com/The-Annotated-Wizard-Centennial-Edition/dp/0393049922/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1378068895&sr=8-1&keywords=martin+gardner+oz

might work better

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Well, at least the original Oz is better fiction than the fiction Wall Street and Banksters write up, and when you put the book down, the Wicked Witch of the North goes away and the whirlwind with her.

The havoc doesn't leap from the pages into real life.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=maetin%20garder

Anti, I have most of these on my shelfs

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Currently Chatting

Keystone would be way worse than we thought!

We already know that the Keystone XL pipeline is a disaster waiting to happen. But, it turns out that the impact of that tar sands pipeline could be even worse than we thought. According to a new study by the Stockholm Environmental Institute, Keystone could add four times more carbon pollution to our atmosphere than the State Department originally estimated.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system