Skip to comments.The Federal Reserve and the Threat of the Silver Slippers
Posted on 11/25/2012 11:56:28 AM PST by Scooter100
While many of you have probably seen it, Ben Still's "The Secret of Oz" (The Federal Reserve and Solutions for a Broken Economy) was a shattering and unexpected eye-opener for me. I saw it for the first time yesterday, and can't stop thinking about how blind I was. If you haven't watched this documentary, I encourage you to do so. It has completely changed my view of the U.S. monetary system and the ideas surrounding monetary reform that promise to cure the current economic mess we find ourselves.
You can watch Ben's (1:57:52 long) award-winning film * Here * .
The documentary cleverly draws on various symbols of our monetary system contained within the pages and characters of L. Frank Baum's book, "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz", published in 1900. Let me tell you, "Oz" will never look the same to you again, as Ben Still's conclusions ring inescapably true, in my mind. Who did the Scarecrow represent? What famous presidential candidate was "the cowardly lion"?
No doubt about it. This is a fascinating, rocky, detailed tutorial ride of the story of our Monetary System, from Ancient Rome to the present. Along the way, it exposes the corrupt cartel world of the private banks, the secretive and privately owned Federal Reserve, their elite owners, and an expose of the history, policies and processes at the core of the Federal Reserve abomination.
The two pillars of Ben's proposal are:
a. The government shall NOT be allowed to borrow money.
b. The government, as clearly stated in the Constitution, shall assume complete sovereignty for issuing currency and shall, itself, regulate the quantity of the nation's money supply.
I watched the film twice....but still have one rather large question for those who understand economics and the crux of Ben Still's proposals:
If the government (via the Treasury Department, rather than the Federal Reserve) were to assume complete, debt-less control over the "printing of money", why would there be a need for income taxes, or ANY taxes, for that matter?
Appreciate your keen insight, as always!
The Federal Reserve is definitely a giant scam. Probably the biggest scam in history. The Federal Reserve is a private business that pays no taxes and collects interest off money created out of thin air that it loans to the government. Actually the same goes when you “borrow” from the banks. They aren’t giving you other people’s deposits, they are just creating the money out of nothing and loaning it to you at interest. If you default, they get your house or other property.
The above sounded so insane it took me years to fully accept it is true.
Other interesting information here and here...
To answer your question, the growth of the money supply should mirror, more or less, the growth of your economy. If money supply grows faster, you get inflation, if it grows more slowly, you get deflation. In your scenario, the money supply would grow arbitrarily faster than the economy as a whole. As your grandmother told you, there is no free lunch. Sooner or later, your currency loses all its value altogether. The greatest damage is that people lose all incentive to save, which provides capital for tomorrow’s investment. Incidently, as contrary as it may seem, deflation is by far worse than inflation, so if the central bank is going to err in growing the money supply, they are going to err on the side of growing it too quickly (leading to inflation).
I would say that it would be necessary in transition ,, physical currency is a small fraction of total money which is all book entry .. I could see it working if the government were limited to 20% of all money created to fund it’s needs.. taxes would be unnecessary then ,, creating too much money would cause inflation and be self correcting.
For reasons stated by others the FED is a scam and must be ended.
Are you thinking that the government could just print money to pay for its operations? It already is or, at least, for about a quarter to a third of its operations.
The money thus created simply dilutes the stock of existing currency and eventually creates price inflation. If I've misunderstood your question, please expound.
Heh. Me, too.
The first economics book I ever read was The Creature from Jekyll Island, the story of the creation of the Federal Reserve.
I was already in my mid-forties and had absolutely no idea what the Fed did. I'd wager 98-99% of Americans still don't.
P.S. I highly recommend the book. There is no economics jargon; just a truly-riveting story about how Americans' money [and it was our money up till then] was thrown down the rat-hole by the big banks and their politician-protectors.
Yeah, I’ve heard that’s a good book and you’re right that 99% of Americans have no clue about the Federal Reserve. Only found out about it a few years ago.
Bookmarking. I saw that film, too. Fascinating. And I’m interested in hearing other FReeper thoughts.
Please watch the film before responding.
Go get creature from Jekyll island.
“Creature from Jekyll Island”...Out of stock at Amazon....but will try my local library. Thanks for the tip Glock! BTW, the cloak-and-dagger story of Jekyll Is. in the past was explained in the film....and the bankster elites to this day are sucking the life out of the country and its citizens.
I will watch the film at some point but it isn't necessary to answer your question.
If the Fed, a privately owned money-making institution, already creates money out of thin air and loans it to the government at interest, why couldn't the Treasury Department perform this task for itself?
That is the problem -- printing money. The Federal Reserve doesn't make a red cent from the government by funding its deficit. It returns all interest collected from the federal government to the Treasury.
Substituting the Treasury would not change a thing.
We do not need to print more money. We should draw a line in the sand and declare that, from this day forward, the amount of money in circulation will not change.
We should pass a Constitutional Amendment that the government is forbidden from adding to or subtracting from the money supply. That privilege is nothing but an invitation to politicians to fund their foolishness without first asking us to support tax increases.
Imagine a world where your money didn't lose purchasing power every year. Just try to imagine that you could make decisions about the future without having to guess how much future administrations might cheapen the dollar.
Think about the couple that lives sensibly and within its means putting money away for retirement only to get there and realize that the latest Treasury Secretary has decided to print some more dollars and now one of them must go back to work as a Walmart greeter [not that there's anything wrong with that.]
Money should be as constant as the mile or the gallon. Businesses should be able to project their costs and revenues. Families should be able to calculate how much their savings will be worth when the kids go to college and the parents retire.
It's the power to print money that screws that all up. It shouldn't be allowed -- whether by the Fed or the Treasury. Gosh, I hope you understand me now.
That book literally changed my life and way of looking at everything.
Forget party nonsense, I promise you - after reading that book - your life will be changed forever as far as how you look at issues and events.
Creature from Jekyll Island opened my eyes to many many many things.
I still dont understand why we have to pay taxes at all since if money created by the FED is good currency w full faith and credit of the USA/ Just seems ;ike theft to me.
Your post is why i supported Ron Paul in the primary. No republican other than paul, perry, and palin even went near this issue
read the reviews.
Congress does not have the authority to print money. Go back and read the Constitution.
False - they have the power to coin money correct?
Yes or no?
Coinage is supposed to be in gold or silver
Certainly, when we watch the entire film, there has apparently been serious dispute with this concept, especially from the bankster world (who'd have guessed?). Regardless, the SCOTUS has, according to "The Heritage Guide to the Constitution" (2005), held that the federal government's monetary power was "inherent in its sovereignty". What that means is anyone's guess, but it is clear from the film that precedent was set (many times) and that the government has often printed money in the past, "greenbacks" being just one example.
I have mixed feelings on this topic. To sum up, anyway, I was just posting about a great film I saw and am recommending FP's watch it. (BTW, if you haven't, you should)
Frankly, I agree with the film on this particular point...it is madness. But it is the madness of living in an iron-fisted plutocracy, a system based on debt and indebtedness. Those to whom we owe our debt, then, call the shots. And they are being called by a very small handful of elites.
It's a sad state of affairs in the world today. The entire planet is in debt to this small group more than at any other time in history. Look at Greece, in serious debt, bereft of its sovereignty, being told by outsiders how to run its internal affairs....just as we are being told. Tow the line, or we'll shut off your money. Behave or we'll foreclose on you. Cooperate or we'll demand loans be paid back. How do we break this government control by the unelected?
And so, the film is about sovereignty and how to get it back. Hard to dispute this premise, methods not withstanding. Regards, and thanks for your input, your points are much appreciated.
A quick Google search revealed numerous links where this lecture can be downloaded as a PDF.
And thank you. We certainly do not disagree about the dangers of debt.