|January 12th, 2012||#1|
Money - How It Actually Works
[This thread is for pieces of writing that explain exactly how money works.]
The Banking Fraud
1. It is literally a fraud - a bunch of clever crooks figured this out some time in the past.
2. It’s a long-con not a smash and grab robbery. It has to be slow and subtle or people notice.
A cartel of private banks with the collusion of the local political authority create a central bank with a monopoly on creating base money.
(It’s not a complete monopoly as the government still creates notes and coins but that’s a small percentage of the total. The vast majority is electronic and simply created on ledgers.)
On its own this is exactly the same as legalized counterfeiting. All else being equal the value of everyone else’s money declines a little because there’s more of it in circulation (inflation) while the counterfeiters use the newly
created money to pay their living expenses and buy assets. 50 years of increasing the money supply by 2% a year would lead to a pretty substantial transfer of wealth to the banksters.
(It’s no different to the royal mint fraud of earlier times where the percentage of gold or silver in coins was gradually reduced.)
There’s no physical limit to how much base money they could create but there is a very strong practical limit if they don’t want people to notice the inflation.
(If the money supply needed to be increased in a treasury system they could do it by starting a major road repair program for example and paying for it in the new money or even just giving everyone $500 at Christmas.)
However the central bank doesn’t just create money and spend it because people would notice. Instead they create the new base money on the books of the commercial banks that make up the cartel. The commercial banks don’t spend it either they use the invented money as the basis for loans with interest. The payoff is in the interest paid on the loans of invented money.
(Fractional reserve banking can and did exist separately from the central bank fraud and has other independent aspects to it but in terms of the “royal mint” fraud it doesn’t matter if the central bank creates $100 million on the books of the commerical banks and only allows them to loan out that $100 million or the central bank creates $10 million and allows the commercial banks to loan out ten times the amount i.e. $100 million. It comes to the same thing. The root of the fraud is the base money created by the central bank.)
So the banking cartels could make money from
- monopoly on money creation aka legalized counterfeiting aka the royal mint fraud
independently if they wanted. The current system combines the two because passing the created money as loans and only pocketing the interest disguises the process. The loans are the bait. The interest is the fish they catch with the bait.
On top of these two there’s the boom and bust fraud. Simply put they lure people into debt with cheap loans then tighten up suddenly, bankrupt people and buy their assets at firesale prices. It’s equivalent to pouring a load of fish food onto the surface of a lake and then when enough fish have gathered throwing a stick of dynamite into the centre and collecting all the dead fish.
- central bank creates base money out of thin air in the form of potential to create loans
- commercial banks create the loans as bait to fish for interest
- the interest is the payoff from the initial money creation
- the negative consequences of the fraud have to be slow and gradual so people don’t notice
- the boom and bust fraud can be used as a top-up but it can’t be too frequent or people will notice
In terms of persuading people then all you need is for them to get the legalized counterfeiting analogy first and once they have that show that the loan mechanism is simply a way of disguising the legalized counterfeiting.
[above is from a comment at Majority Rights]
Last edited by Alex Linder; January 12th, 2012 at 04:02 AM.
|January 12th, 2012||#2|
Join Date: Jun 2009
Monumental issues here. I'm thinking about 10/20 things and, well must start somewhere. Revisions to be placed as needed.
It is my understanding that Ron Paul is purist- he does not believe in fractional at all. A look at two videos shows he calls for outlawing fractional. So from the Daily Paul of 10/24/2009 we have a posting of Greenspan's Gold and Economic Freedom article from '65/'66. I am going to post the whole thing as it is very famous and needs to be circulated:
>>>An almost hysterical antagonism toward the gold standard is one issue which unites statists of all persuasions. They seem to sense – perhaps more clearly and subtly than many consistent defenders of laissez-faire – that gold and economic freedom are inseparable, that the gold standard is an instrument of laissez-faire and that each implies and requires the other.
In order to understand the source of their antagonism, it is necessary first to understand the specific role of gold in a free society.
Money is the common denominator of all economic transactions. It is that commodity which serves as a medium of exchange, is universally acceptable to all participants in an exchange economy as payment for their goods or services, and can, therefore, be used as a standard of market value and as a store of value, i.e., as a means of saving.
The existence of such a commodity is a precondition of a division of labor economy. If men did not have some commodity of objective value which was generally acceptable as money, they would have to resort to primitive barter or be forced to live on self-sufficient farms and forgo the inestimable advantages of specialization. If men had no means to store value, i.e., to save, neither long-range planning nor exchange would be possible.
What medium of exchange will be acceptable to all participants in an economy is not determined arbitrarily. First, the medium of exchange should be durable. In a primitive society of meager wealth, wheat might be sufficiently durable to serve as a medium, since all exchanges would occur only during and immediately after the harvest, leaving no value-surplus to store. But where store-of-value considerations are important, as they are in richer, more civilized societies, the medium of exchange must be a durable commodity, usually a metal. A metal is generally chosen because it is homogeneous and divisible: every unit is the same as every other and it can be blended or formed in any quantity. Precious jewels, for example, are neither homogeneous nor divisible. More important, the commodity chosen as a medium must be a luxury. Human desires for luxuries are unlimited and, therefore, luxury goods are always in demand and will always be acceptable. Wheat is a luxury in underfed civilizations, but not in a prosperous society. Cigarettes ordinarily would not serve as money, but they did in post-World War II Europe where they were considered a luxury. The term "luxury good" implies scarcity and high unit value. Having a high unit value, such a good is easily portable; for instance, an ounce of gold is worth a half-ton of pig iron.
In the early stages of a developing money economy, several media of exchange might be used, since a wide variety of commodities would fulfill the foregoing conditions. However, one of the commodities will gradually displace all others, by being more widely acceptable. Preferences on what to hold as a store of value will shift to the most widely acceptable commodity, which, in turn, will make it still more acceptable. The shift is progressive until that commodity becomes the sole medium of exchange. The use of a single medium is highly advantageous for the same reasons that a money economy is superior to a barter economy: it makes exchanges possible on an incalculably wider scale.
Whether the single medium is gold, silver, seashells, cattle, or tobacco is optional, depending on the context and development of a given economy. In fact, all have been employed, at various times, as media of exchange. Even in the present century, two major commodities, gold and silver, have been used as international media of exchange, with gold becoming the predominant one. Gold, having both artistic and functional uses and being relatively scarce, has significant advantages over all other media of exchange. Since the beginning of World War I, it has been virtually the sole international standard of exchange. If all goods and services were to be paid for in gold, large payments would be difficult to execute and this would tend to limit the extent of a society's divisions of labor and specialization. Thus a logical extension of the creation of a medium of exchange is the development of a banking system and credit instruments (bank notes and deposits) which act as a substitute for, but are convertible into, gold.
A free banking system based on gold is able to extend credit and thus to create bank notes (currency) and deposits, according to the production requirements of the economy. Individual owners of gold are induced, by payments of interest, to deposit their gold in a bank (against which they can draw checks). But since it is rarely the case that all depositors want to withdraw all their gold at the same time, the banker need keep only a fraction of his total deposits in gold as reserves. This enables the banker to loan out more than the amount of his gold deposits (which means that he holds claims to gold rather than gold as security of his deposits). But the amount of loans which he can afford to make is not arbitrary: he has to gauge it in relation to his reserves and to the status of his investments.
When banks loan money to finance productive and profitable endeavors, the loans are paid off rapidly and bank credit continues to be generally available. But when the business ventures financed by bank credit are less profitable and slow to pay off, bankers soon find that their loans outstanding are excessive relative to their gold reserves, and they begin to curtail new lending, usually by charging higher interest rates. This tends to restrict the financing of new ventures and requires the existing borrowers to improve their profitability before they can obtain credit for further expansion. Thus, under the gold standard, a free banking system stands as the protector of an economy's stability and balanced growth. When gold is accepted as the medium of exchange by most or all nations, an unhampered free international gold standard serves to foster a world-wide division of labor and the broadest international trade. Even though the units of exchange (the dollar, the pound, the franc, etc.) differ from country to country, when all are defined in terms of gold the economies of the different countries act as one – so long as there are no restraints on trade or on the movement of capital. Credit, interest rates, and prices tend to follow similar patterns in all countries. For example, if banks in one country extend credit too liberally, interest rates in that country will tend to fall, inducing depositors to shift their gold to higher-interest paying banks in other countries. This will immediately cause a shortage of bank reserves in the "easy money" country, inducing tighter credit standards and a return to competitively higher interest rates again.
A fully free banking system and fully consistent gold standard have not as yet been achieved. But prior to World War I, the banking system in the United States (and in most of the world) was based on gold and even though governments intervened occasionally, banking was more free than controlled. Periodically, as a result of overly rapid credit expansion, banks became loaned up to the limit of their gold reserves,interest rates rose sharply, new credit was cut off, and the economy went into a sharp, but short-lived recession. (Compared with the depressions of 1920 and 1932, the pre-World War I business declines were mild indeed.) It was limited gold reserves that stopped the unbalanced expansions of business activity, before they could develop into the post-World War I type of disaster. The readjustment periods were short and the economies quickly reestablished a sound basis to resume expansion.
But the process of cure was misdiagnosed as the disease: if shortage of bank reserves was causing a business decline – argued economic interventionists – why not find a way of supplying increased reserves to the banks so they never need be short! If banks can continue to loan money indefinitely – it was claimed – there need never be any slumps in business. And so the Federal Reserve System was organized in 1913. It consisted of twelve regional Federal Reserve banks nominally owned by private bankers, but in fact government sponsored, controlled, and supported. Credit extended by these banks is in practice (though not legally) backed by the taxing power of the federal government. Technically, we remained on the gold standard; individuals were still free to own gold, and gold continued to be used as bank reserves. But now, in addition to gold, credit extended by the Federal Reserve banks ("paper reserves") could serve as legal tender to pay depositors.
When business in the United States underwent a mild contraction in 1927, the Federal Reserve created more paper reserves in the hope of forestalling any possible bank reserve shortage. More disastrous, however, was the Federal Reserve's attempt to assist Great Britain who had been losing gold to us because the Bank of England refused to allow interest rates to rise when market forces dictated (it was politically unpalatable). The reasoning of the authorities involved was as follows: if the Federal Reserve pumped excessive paper reserves into American banks, interest rates in the United States would fall to a level comparable with those in Great Britain; this would act to stop Britain's gold loss and avoid the political embarrassment of having to raise interest rates. The "Fed" succeeded; it stopped the gold loss, but it nearly destroyed the economies of the world, in the process. The excess credit which the Fed pumped into the economy spilled over into the stock market, triggering a fantastic speculative boom. Belatedly, Federal Reserve officials attempted to sop up the excess reserves and finally succeeded in braking the boom. But it was too late: by 1929 the speculative imbalances had become so overwhelming that the attempt precipitated a sharp retrenching and a consequent demoralizing of business confidence. As a result, the American economy collapsed. Great Britain fared even worse, and rather than absorb the full consequences of her previous folly, she abandoned the gold standard completely in 1931, tearing asunder what remained of the fabric of confidence and inducing a world-wide series of bank failures. The world economies plunged into the Great Depression of the 1930's.
With a logic reminiscent of a generation earlier, statists argued that the gold standard was largely to blame for the credit debacle which led to the Great Depression. If the gold standard had not existed, they argued, Britain's abandonment of gold payments in 1931 would not have caused the failure of banks all over the world. (The irony was that since 1913, we had been, not on a gold standard, but on what may be termed "a mixed gold standard"; yet it is gold that took the blame.) But the opposition to the gold standard in any form – from a growing number of welfare-state advocates – was prompted by a much subtler insight: the realization that the gold standard is incompatible with chronic deficit spending (the hallmark of the welfare state). Stripped of its academic jargon, the welfare state is nothing more than a mechanism by which governments confiscate the wealth of the productive members of a society to support a wide variety of welfare schemes. A substantial part of the confiscation is effected by taxation. But the welfare statists were quick to recognize that if they wished to retain political power, the amount of taxation had to be limited and they had to resort to programs of massive deficit spending, i.e., they had to borrow money, by issuing government bonds, to finance welfare expenditures on a large scale.
Under a gold standard, the amount of credit that an economy can support is determined by the economy's tangible assets, since every credit instrument is ultimately a claim on some tangible asset. But government bonds are not backed by tangible wealth, only by the government's promise to pay out of future tax revenues, and cannot easily be absorbed by the financial markets. A large volume of new government bonds can be sold to the public only at progressively higher interest rates. Thus, government deficit spending under a gold standard is severely limited. The abandonment of the gold standard made it possible for the welfare statists to use the banking system as a means to an unlimited expansion of credit. They have created paper reserves in the form of government bonds which – through a complex series of steps – the banks accept in place of tangible assets and treat as if they were an actual deposit, i.e., as the equivalent of what was formerly a deposit of gold. The holder of a government bond or of a bank deposit created by paper reserves believes that he has a valid claim on a real asset. But the fact is that there are now more claims outstanding than real assets. The law of supply and demand is not to be conned. As the supply of money (of claims) increases relative to the supply of tangible assets in the economy, prices must eventually rise. Thus the earnings saved by the productive members of the society lose value in terms of goods. When the economy's books are finally balanced, one finds that this loss in value represents the goods purchased by the government for welfare or other purposes with the money proceeds of the government bonds financed by bank credit expansion.
In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.
This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists' antagonism toward the gold standard.<<<
But since it is rarely the case that all depositors want to withdraw all their gold at the same time, the banker need keep only a fraction of his total deposits in gold as reserves. This enables the banker to loan out more than the amount of his gold deposits
This is unvarnished fractional- loans made up from nothing- from nothing, NOT from gold. The interest is charged on these nothing loans And this view is endorsed by the Daily Paul. (The Daily Paul is a community website with no official affiliation with Ron Paul or his Presidential Committee).
Greenspan: since every credit instrument is ultimately a claim on some tangible asset. How can this be true? If a bank has 1000 units of gold, and 10,000 units of credit, what are the 9000 units of credit making claims on?
On a gold standard, the gold is the money. To borrow money would mean to borrow gold, NOT some imaginary "credit." The credit would be THE ACTUAL PHYSICAL GOLD.
We need to get away from the idea that only bankers can loan. Anyone has a right to loan and earn interest. A worker can loan a gold coin to a neighbor, without making up "credits" from nothing. A tractor dealer can make a loan of the physical tractor, and charge interest in the payments.
Submitted by ubetcha on Mon, 10/26/2009 - 18:02.
So this is the article RP has mentioned!
alan greenssan gold and economic freedom
Submitted by sdwolfe on Mon, 10/26/2009 - 11:06.
This article is total misinformation passed on to further enslave all societies of the world. It is this type of BS and misinformation that got us into this economic mess in the first place. Money is an institution of law, not a commodity or anything else. It is not tangible wealth in itself, but a power to obtain wealth. Money is an abstract social power based in law, and whatever government accepts in payment in taxes will be money. Gold is a commodity and investment medium. If it were the basis of money, whoever had the most, would control society. For all of those people who do not want government controlling our “money” system, you already have your wish. The Federal
Reserve is a vicious private group that issues interest-bearing debt that is passed onto us as substitute money. This is the reason of why our infrastructure is in ruins. Because the Federal Reserve System is a private company, they do not have to follow the laws that make-up a balanced society. So we now have a war based society because the government, that is to say, all people of the United States, do not have a say in how money should be used. We need government control so that, … we the people…are in charge. The seigniorage of a money system belongs to its owners. It is the fundamental right of a democracy. Without this right in place, you do not have a democracy. The seigniorage is the benefits that the owners of the money power are entitled. With this right, we may rebuild the infrastructure of our country without further expense to its owners, the people. This means that money would be spent directly into existence without any burden on its owners. This means that roads, bridges, dams, the Katrina mess, health-care, education would all be taken care of without further expense to the owners of a democracy. This is what true economic freedom looks like. It is not the twisted view that Alan Greenspan, Adam Smith or what anyone else is trying to pass along so that we may be kept as a society of legalized slaves.
Stephen Zarlenga’s book, “The Lost Science of Money” is the “gold standard” of the true nature of money. Check it out at www.monetary.org.
<<<<This ties in to something J. Richards wrote:, addressing L. Haller (Majority Rights):
The substance in your comment @8 is an excerpt that begins with the following fundamental premise of the Austrian School:
The reason is that a money under the control of the government and its banking system is subject to inexorable pressures toward continuing monetary inflation.
This is the key to understanding the Austrian School. When Rothbard wrote the article, the government only issued coins as money [as it still does], i.e., almost all money was created and controlled by bankers. The Austrian School starts from a big lie.
Posted by danielj on January 04, 2012, 12:25 PM | #
Leon is opposed to fiat currency on principle. He doesn’t care if it is debt-free money created with the best interests of the race in mind.
Now comes the great untangling, I think. There seems to be an anti-Austrian movement, of unknown origin. It is more or less tied to the advocacy of a public interest, non-fractional fiat Keynesianism. Print and spend- no loans , no usury, no jew middlemen. The system is to be run by the State.
Here is where they get angry- they say that Austrians put the blame on government for creating money, when the blame should go to private, selfish bankers.
From above, Richards (quoting Rothbard, I think)-
The reason is that a money under the control of the government and its banking system is subject to inexorable pressures toward continuing monetary inflation
Richards see the word "government". He misses "its banking system". That means- the private system authorized by "it"- by the government. Austrians clearly know that banks make up the money. The inexorable pressure did come from the State- to finance a million things it should not be doing.
Anyhow, there is real pressure coming from advocates of what Dr. North calls Greenbacking. It is government (public spirited) inflation, without fractional, but not called inflation. There are two honchos now- Steven Zarlenga and Ellen Brown. Zarlenga is already working with Dennis Kucinich!
(Interview with Zarlenga) (part 1 of 6)
The fact is that Zarlengo does not want to abolish the Fed. His illogic is that an already corrupt government can do a better job running an already corrupt FR. In other words, replacing the devil you know for the devil you know even better. It's disgusting how the pretends to be this populist economist when he's in fact an apologist and a stooge for the FR System.
mariatechnosux 3 months ago
Gary North has been studying the Greenbacker movement for 45 years. Recently he debated Ellen Brown (Lawyer, not economist). She conceded and threw her support to Bernanke! The paper money brotherhood!
Those reading this far need to read Dr. North on this intriguing subject:
Last edited by Rick Ronsavelle; January 12th, 2012 at 05:28 PM.
|January 12th, 2012||#3|
I'm looking for people to explain money in their own words - as briefly and clearly as possible.
Rick - as for what you posted above, a few observations.
I don't trust Richards. I believe he has ulterior motivations. The fact that "GuessedWorker" lets him edit Majority Rights compromises that site. The reasons I don't trust Richards are many, but begin with him claiming Duke, Zundel and I are all controlled opposition. That makes him not wrong but a liar, a deliberate liar. The other folks who have made this bogus claim were associated with Eric Huffschmid (sp?), who made a graphic to that effect years ago. I belief the liar known as "The Skunk" may be associated with Huffschmid's crew. More recently, when I was commenting at MR (which was all erased, a thread of more than 1,000 responses - now gone, when I checked recently, unless I missed it), known liar Richards claimed VNN was obviously controlled because it made no mention of the Mossad being responsible for 9/11. I pointed out we have a sticky thread on that subject, making just that accusation, in one of our top two forums, and it has hundreds of thousands of views, probably more than any other single thread in this forum. So Richards is, as I say, a known liar, and should be ostracized by all honest men on our side.
Getting back to money...
In my opinion, no one can be trusted with the counterfeiting machine. Just because someone says he's doing it for the good of the race is no guarantee of anything. It's like the argument over big government. Is it inherently bad for Whites, or is it just that the wrong people are running it? I say the former.
It seems to me, until I see it plausibly argued otherwise, that money must be tied to gold, and competing currencies allowed. That way we don't have to rely on fallible men because if they try to cheat, the market will reject their bogus currencies. The NS claims for government deficit spending come from two quarters - specifically, WN who are former ZOG employees (military or bureaucrats), and those who lack the intellectual ability to spot the problems in "best interests of the race."
|January 12th, 2012||#4|
In a White nation, every man with political power will claim he is operating in the 'best interests of the race.' No matter what he is doing. Can't you see someone like Gliebe using this term?
No one can be trusted with a counterfeiting machine. Therefore, the control must not be the goodness of the man or men in question, but neutral, outside forces - and these would be market competition. That's the only way to keep things honest.
|January 13th, 2012||#5|
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Jew S. A.
The first problem I see with gold is that I don't have any. I imagine the same people, who have manipulated the current monetary supply, or ones equally inimical to me, already have a monopoly on gold, and I further imagine that any transition between the two currencies would be made murderously profitable to them.
My secondary thoughts go to the issue of societal trust, which is currently in insufficient supply to back a government controlled public central bank. My only rebuttal is that societal trust has been intentionally and artificially destroyed by multi-racialization, and if a race based government ever came to power, it would likely be indicative of a racial cohesion which had risen to heights never before seen in America, and in tandem with that increase would come a more mutually shared sense of social responsibility and societal trust, which might be capable of ensuring the solvency of race-bucks.
Free market libertarianism, on the other hand, would seem to have a tendency to encourage the same lack of trust by which it justifies its existence (can't trust anybody).
|January 13th, 2012||#6|
Gold is expensive right now. I wish I could buy some myself. But silver can still be had for a much lower price. Some people think silver will outperform gold over the medium term. I think gold is better, if it's a choice between them. I will proudly say again for about the twelth time, I repeatedly advised people here on this forum to buy gold when it was in the 500s. That was after it had already had a good run, but would still go up another 4x (at least). The fundamentals driving gold's high price remain in place - the government continues to spend, spend, spend and print, print, print. As long as that is the case, I would guess gold won't dip back down too far. But who knows for sure? Not me. What I do know is gold will never go to zero value, whereas, in time, all paper money will.
Rely on people's honesty and incorruptibility? Are people who get control of political institutions more or less honest or corruptible than even average people? The answer is obvious. The honesty of politicians simply can't be trusted for anything. The best that can be done is build in incentives and make laws so that racial interests are aligned with white-human nature. And even then, the controls can be gotten around. But that's the best that can be done. It's up to every generation to protects its interests, racial and economic, and its freedoms. It's not a fight that can be permanently won or lost.
Last edited by Alex Linder; January 13th, 2012 at 08:46 AM.