The Money Masters

14 posts / 0 new
Last post
dropout
dropout's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/14/2011
Hat Tips: 4840
Posts: 627
The Money Masters

The global economic crash happened in October 2008. We are now almost three years into this global depression.

The link to the video will inform you who and what caused it. How to fix it and prevent it from happening again.

http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-money-masters/

Edited by admin on 11/08/2014 - 06:06
Sterling
Sterling's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/14/2011
Hat Tips: 2826
Posts: 266
There's a slightly updated

There's a slightly updated yet somewhat different version of this called the Secret of Oz which draws parallels between the banking system and the Wizard of Oz story.  The same guy hosts it.

__________________

Can I offer you a drink? How about this expensive prostitute?

Dyhalto
Dyhalto's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/30/2011
Hat Tips: 13
Posts: 18
Money Masters is the

Money Masters is the documentary that woke me up.

But I don't think anybody on this site needs it if they've come this far. Very much worth distributing to sleeping people though.

hpx
hpx's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/14/2011
Hat Tips: 326
Posts: 42
I'm going to upset a few people by saying this

Here is the thing. Bill Still, Ellen Brown and people alike has an ability to wake people up. Good. But their solutions are horrible. They are what is usually refered to as "Greenbackers". Their main problem with the Federal Reserve isn't that it is printing money - it is that the printing press is not in the hands of a government that can print money at will for "the good of the people". People here are probably (or at least should be) aware that there is no good in money-printing, ever, unless it is done in a 100%-reserve fashion.

Paper claims must be backed by real assets. Now, like I said, the problem with Bill Still & Co. is that they are trying to promote ideas like "interest free loans", and all-state banking (no private banks at all). Unfortunately, this is as stupid as the current system. Without interest rates, no capital formation. With no private banks, investment will be made by state dictate, not by a free market system that promotes sound investment and punishes bad investments.

For those who haven't figured, I am standing with both feet solidly in the Mises/Rothbard camp, and you should too. It is much brighter on the moral, logical, individualist side of this debate.

Jake
Jake's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/14/2011
Hat Tips: 7806
Posts: 477
hpx wrote: Here is the thing.

hpx wrote:

Here is the thing. Bill Still, Ellen Brown and people alike has an ability to wake people up. Good. But their solutions are horrible. They are what is usually refered to as "Greenbackers". Their main problem with the Federal Reserve isn't that it is printing money - it is that the printing press is not in the hands of a government that can print money at will for "the good of the people". People here are probably (or at least should be) aware that there is no good in money-printing, ever, unless it is done in a 100%-reserve fashion.

Paper claims must be backed by real assets.

This is well said--You have an excellent grasp on this concept---HAT TIP ---Now---In defense of Bill Still, he was trying to go one step ahead of a simple solution of gold-backed or silver-backed currency. He feels the metals market is too small and can easily be manipulated from abroad. His model for a solution was Guernsey-a subject that I've posted about in other threads. He praised the idea of a currency that was backed by the faith in that country carrying no interest as you've pointed out. It works great until a section of the population becomes dependent for whatever reason and can't contribute to the growth of the society, such as the ill or elderly.

Since there's really no answers to a growing population with a segment that must, by definition become dependent, green-backs fail too as debt reults from taking care of growing segments of people who can't work. The debt shows up early as "manageable", but eventually gets out of hand as we have now become.

Additionally, once one segment receives compensation for no societal contribution, others want it and try voting themselves free stuff too. And herein lies the problem you're referring to. 

So, is a sound gold-backed currency the solution? Answer, no. The only way this best monetary system can work is if people remain honest enough not to vote in politicians who will give them free stuff to perpetuate his term or terms in office.

The society could enforce rules of term limits, but in the end, we are all human and have the unfortunate flaw of living on this planet for a brief time where we can't resist living in the present only to push problems into the future and onto the next generation.

So, unfortunately, there is no solution. We are doomed to form governments, free or not, that eventually fill the streets with worthless paper money followed by collapse---destruction---wars---riots---dark ages---enlightment---recovery---rebirth---temporary prosperity---rinse repeat.

__________________

Your Silver--I Want to Buy it! Sell Me Your Silver!

I_ate_the_crow
I_ate_the_crow's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/14/2011
Hat Tips: 1461
Posts: 186
hpx wrote:Here is the thing.

hpx wrote:

Here is the thing. Bill Still, Ellen Brown and people alike has an ability to wake people up. Good. But their solutions are horrible. They are what is usually refered to as "Greenbackers". Their main problem with the Federal Reserve isn't that it is printing money - it is that the printing press is not in the hands of a government that can print money at will for "the good of the people". People here are probably (or at least should be) aware that there is no good in money-printing, ever, unless it is done in a 100%-reserve fashion.

Paper claims must be backed by real assets. Now, like I said, the problem with Bill Still & Co. is that they are trying to promote ideas like "interest free loans", and all-state banking (no private banks at all). Unfortunately, this is as stupid as the current system. Without interest rates, no capital formation. With no private banks, investment will be made by state dictate, not by a free market system that promotes sound investment and punishes bad investments.

For those who haven't figured, I am standing with both feet solidly in the Mises/Rothbard camp, and you should too. It is much brighter on the moral, logical, individualist side of this debate.

I don't think you quite understand what Bill Still is arguing for. The central premise of his thesis is that it is all about who controls the quantity of money in supply. If the government issued the currency itself, strictly as a medium of exchange, with no interest owed to a private central bank, it could easily control the supply in existence. This is how Colonial Script worked. In other words, the entire idea is based on the fact that printing money is bad - if there is no debt attached to the money supply issued by Congress, then there is no need to print more of it to service the debt in an exponential clusterfuck cycle like we have now! So "their main problem with the Federal Reserve isn't that it is printing money - it is that the printing press is not in the hands of a government that can print money at will for "the good of the people" isn't an accurate characterization.

This is a key distinction - it's about issuing the money as a sovereign versus borrowing from a private bank. The problems associated with "printing" money are completely different in the borrowing scenario, as we are all well aware right now.

Also, in my opinion, Still doesn't argue for Congress-determined, interest free loans. For example, the State Bank of North Dakota charges interest to the state on its loans, but the people via the bank are in control of where the profits are redistributed! As you know, the Fed is in charge of where our tax dollars are distributed, and most of it goes to dividends, interest, debt service, and the IMF. And so we are forced to keep borrowing.

And just because there is no longer a private central bank doesn't mean that there are no other private banks allowed; rather, you still allow private banking, there is just no fractional reserve lending and Glass-Steagall separation of investment and deposit institutions is re-imposed. 

I agree that a gold standard is better than fiat, but I think it is easy to demonstrate that sovereign money (and silver) is far superior than a gold standard. It's a complex issue with no easy answers, that's for sure.

ampmfix
ampmfix's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/14/2011
Posts: 3
Still and Brown debunked

By Gary North: http://www.garynorth.com/public/department141.cfm

dropout
dropout's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/14/2011
Hat Tips: 4840
Posts: 627
His way or the Highway!

While I agree with much of what Gary North proselytizes, I find his tight, closed opinions, to be somewhat over bearing. He is loathe to own up to being wrong. On anything! After all he did put out the wide spread Y2K call of armageddon and ultimate global economic doom, while advising a survivalist attitude, with bunker mentality.

I'm not saying Still and Brown have all the answers - who does? However their point of view raises very relevant arguments as to a possible solution to the present economic malaise, and should not be dismissed in it's entirety. Kinda like throwing the baby out with the bath water!   

Dyhalto
Dyhalto's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/30/2011
Hat Tips: 13
Posts: 18
Arguing gold-backed vs fiat

Arguing gold-backed vs fiat is largely irrelevant. What we need is the ability to freely choose between the two. That means an end to legislated banking monopolies.

I want to be able to go to the Bank of Goldbug and get a loan in gold-backed currency, then go to Bank of Paperbug and get a loan in fiat currency. In this situation, confidence will wane in the fiat bank over time and it'll go under, while the gold-backing will automatically assert itself as the dominant currency creator. And who knows? From that point, humanity may invent  a new method of exchange.

ampmfix
ampmfix's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/14/2011
Posts: 3
Naive or mischievous socialist?

Gary North comment is just an example on why I think Still is wrong on several points, Edward G. Griffin brings other examples.

FRB needs to be abolished, as Still says, agree with that, but his comment of "gold is only held by the rich or the banks" stinks to high heaven. Another of his points that I find naive at best is the belief in the honesty of some politicians. What is not naive is his hiding some historical facts related to gold.

Tom L
Tom L's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/15/2011
Hat Tips: 6766
Posts: 1339
Agree Completely.

hpx wrote:

Here is the thing. Bill Still, Ellen Brown and people alike has an ability to wake people up. Good. But their solutions are horrible. They are what is usually refered to as "Greenbackers". Their main problem with the Federal Reserve isn't that it is printing money - it is that the printing press is not in the hands of a government that can print money at will for "the good of the people". People here are probably (or at least should be) aware that there is no good in money-printing, ever, unless it is done in a 100%-reserve fashion.

Paper claims must be backed by real assets. Now, like I said, the problem with Bill Still & Co. is that they are trying to promote ideas like "interest free loans", and all-state banking (no private banks at all). Unfortunately, this is as stupid as the current system. Without interest rates, no capital formation. With no private banks, investment will be made by state dictate, not by a free market system that promotes sound investment and punishes bad investments.

For those who haven't figured, I am standing with both feet solidly in the Mises/Rothbard camp, and you should too. It is much brighter on the moral, logical, individualist side of this debate.

I got 12 minutes into the Secret of Oz and nearly threw up.  Gold is not the enemy of the people.  They have forced crappy money into circulation and Gresham's Law plays itself out.  Those that instigated this are not stupid, they have the most money due to being in charge of the crappy money's exchange rate.  During the time when that money is circulating and gold is not (Gresham's Law) they accumulate gold (just keep stackin' boys!) until such time as their crappy money dies.  At that point they re-monetize gold b/c they have to in order to regain the trust and allow commerce to rebuild the world.  At which point the whole cycle starts all over again.

The solution to this cycle is to remove the government from the business of money.  Yeah, fucking right.  So, the final solution is to repudiate centralized government and embrace only privately issued currencies and private law systems.

Read/Listen to What Government Has Done to Our Money by Rothbard

http://mises.org/books/Rothbard_What_Has_Government_Done.pdf

and check out Gary North's takedowns of Ellen Brown. http://www.garynorth.com (see the sidebar Ellen Brown critique)

Ta,

__________________

-- Support bacteria, it's the only culture some people have.

Need Goats or Chickens? Say hello at: www.facebook.com/PirateDogAcres

Tom L
Tom L's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/15/2011
Hat Tips: 6766
Posts: 1339
OutLookingIn wrote: While I

OutLookingIn wrote:

While I agree with much of what Gary North proselytizes, I find his tight, closed opinions, to be somewhat over bearing. He is loathe to own up to being wrong. On anything! After all he did put out the wide spread Y2K call of armageddon and ultimate global economic doom, while advising a survivalist attitude, with bunker mentality.

I'm not saying Still and Brown have all the answers - who does? However their point of view raises very relevant arguments as to a possible solution to the present economic malaise, and should not be dismissed in it's entirety. Kinda like throwing the baby out with the bath water!   

North, like many, is in the business of self-promotion, but unlike many, he is right a great deal of the time.  I have tried many times to ignore him and have been wrong every single time.  He understands money and the Austrian Business Cycle.  It's not about what is the best currency, gold and silver, it's about who sets its value.  In that respect Still is onto something.  I'm nearly convinced that some derivative of Bitcoin is going to completely upend our ideas about what attributes a money will need going forward in time.  The anonymity of Bitcoin, for example, is attractive b/c it still retains the convenience of a digital currency.  This is unique at this point in time.  I'm not advocating Bitcoin, just using it as an example of where money could turn into b/c of this inflection point/4th turning/spasm that we're currently living through.

Our faith in government-created systems is failing (see Martin Armstrong's commentary about where we are in his ECM) right now and this is the time when new ideas are generated and tested.  Something may shake out of this which changes the dynamics of the cycle which vacilates between public and private (to use Armstrong's terminology). 

All that said, North's arguments about what is and is not money are still valid no matter what form the currency takes.  Remember, in his view, and I agree with him, gold is not money right now, digits are.

Ta,

__________________

-- Support bacteria, it's the only culture some people have.

Need Goats or Chickens? Say hello at: www.facebook.com/PirateDogAcres

dropout
dropout's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/14/2011
Hat Tips: 4840
Posts: 627
If not gold? Whats money?

Digits are nothing more than an accounting method for record keeping and have been known to be fictionalized. eg. current "mark to fantasy" accounting standards that set an example of accounting, that is at best, fraudulent.

What passes for "money" in todays world are these "digits" and paper currency, which value is set by fiat. These instruments of accountability are no more worthy of being called "money" then tally sticks of old or knots in a herdsman's tote cord! 

How quickly people tend to dismiss the fact that physical gold and to a lessor extent silver, are the only "true money" that mankind has known since the dawn of written history and probably before!

Its not the fact that we have put our faith in paper currency, its the fact that we have shirked our responsibility of ensuring who has control over the printing of such and the quantity printed. On whether or not ones point of view or another's, is more accurate, depends entirely upon the vantage point. Both camps have high ideals and in their opinion's have the best vantage point. One thing that is glaringly obvious and may be agreed upon by all, is that the present monetary system is irrevocably broken and no longer performs a constructive service.

Tom L
Tom L's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/15/2011
Hat Tips: 6766
Posts: 1339
OutLookingIn wrote: Digits

OutLookingIn wrote:

Digits are nothing more than an accounting method for record keeping and have been known to be fictionalized. eg. current "mark to fantasy" accounting standards that set an example of accounting, that is at best, fraudulent.

What passes for "money" in todays world are these "digits" and paper currency, which value is set by fiat. These instruments of accountability are no more worthy of being called "money" then tally sticks of old or knots in a herdsman's tote cord!

Nonsense.  You are refusing to accept reality and are trying to force what you'd prefer onto what is.  Gold. is. not. money. I wish it were.  If it were, you and I wouldn't be conversing most likely as the need for people like Turd and us wouldn't be as acute.

You are missing the point.  What is money currently is that which you can exchange for soemthing else.  Gold is a lot of things, but right now due to Gresham's Law it. is. not. money.  Gold is insurance right now.  It may become money again at some point but it is not money.   Yes, they've set the value arbitrarily. Yes the dollar is over-valued vs. gold, if it wasn't gold would circulate parallel to the dollar.   But it doesn't.  Therefore, our wishes notwithstanding and all protestation to the contrary be damned, Gold. is. not. money.

If it was you could take it to the store and buy shit with it.  You can't.  People don't want it.  They still want dollars.  Until that changes gold. is. not. money.

We value gold over the dollar only when those dollars are not needed to buy the things we need to satisfy current demands.  We are saving in gold.  That does not make it money.  Would you think shares of Apple or Exxon/Mobil as money?  No.  You wouldn't.  Those are your investments, or savings.  Nothing more.  You don't walk into the Winn-Dixie and buy groceries with shares of XOM.  You first convert them into dollars and then spend the dollars. 

Many people have been deluded into thinking gold is the ultimate money.  It's not.  It has been a great store of wealth and at times it has functioned as money.  They are two completely different things.

Ta,

__________________

-- Support bacteria, it's the only culture some people have.

Need Goats or Chickens? Say hello at: www.facebook.com/PirateDogAcres

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Topic locked
Syndicate contentComments for "The Money Masters"