The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Steve Penfield Archive
Financial Follies
Can we cut the faux Outrage over ‘The Fed’ and the evil ‘One Percenters’ and focus on illicit Counterfeiting and other core issues?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

Do Americans have the guts to attempt a financial re-set and build a stable currency system? Or do we prefer long-term debt slavery and another Great Depression?

With the national debt reaching absurd heights and personal home/auto/college/credit card debt sucking the joy out of life, it’s long overdue for a fresh look at this ancient topic. If your understanding of financial matters is informed by mainstream news and/or subsidized academics, I’m guessing you may have missed some key points—since both groups love to talk and rant in closed-loop drum circles of irrelevancy.

The core issues of modern finance include the alchemy of fractional money multiplying, the nearly empty banks tottering on collapse, about 2,500% admitted inflationary theft over the last century (actually much more), the fiat mandate to use their “rubber dollars,” and the corporate-government-media collusion that allows all sides to exploit this system.

The ongoing failure to adequately address any of those core topics has led to trillions of hours of squandered labor and the rotten fruits of reckless fiat credit debasement. Until these foundational issues are properly sorted out, cultural progress—or perhaps even survival for many—will be significantly more difficult.

Since user-friendly organization isn’t just for the book publishing industry, I’ve decided to include a table of contents for the section headings of this essay, as follows:

  • Corporate-Government-Media Collusion: Loss of Independence is a Killer
  • Point of Clarity: Rejecting the ‘All or Nothing’ Canard
  • Problems with the ‘Gold Standard’ and a ‘Fixed’ Rate of Exchange
  • The Violent Origin of Fiat ‘Legal Tender’
  • Designing A More Stable Currency System: Monitored Weight and Purity, Not Corporate Credit Sprees, Not Political Monetary Values
  • A Valid Role for the Feds?
  • The Crash of 1873 and 11 other Major Banking Collapses: Hard to Blame all these on ‘The Fed’
  • A ‘Roaring’ Glimpse of Private Credit
  • Call of the Mild: Pointless Chatter about ‘Globalism’ and ‘One Percenters’
  • Conclusion

Moving on with the body of this essay, with the help of the aforementioned “barbarous relics,” the ten largest banks in the U.S. have accumulated nearly $10 trillion in assets (as of December 2019), all from the comfort of an air-conditioned office or a business lunch at the Capital Grille. A current listing of the top 100 banks in the world put their combined assets—the titles to millions of homes and businesses, corporate bonds and government IOUs—at many multiples of that U.S. figure.

What virtually no one in any position of institutional authority is willing to admit: nearly all of that money was clipped, skimmed and stolen from the dwindling producers of society. And every bit of that fiat “stimulus” credit is expressly inflationary, corrosive and unnecessary. Failing to face those hard realities, very few are willing to consider the only real options we have left: keep feeding this untamable beast with more debt until the economy implodes and everyone is left working at a Bezos-Gates-Zuckerberg data harvesting fulfillment center, or cancel the debt entirely and put the savings and credit process back in the hands of productive citizens where it always belonged.

An organized debt forgiveness program could also delineate clear boundaries between cancelling fiat credit schemes and (say) giving freeloaders an excuse to trespass “rent free” on an owner’s property. America’s struggles during the 1930s saw a similar debacle from a dithering executive who chose to appease unionized factory squatters instead of protecting property rights—as his own Vice President, John Garner, had privately urged him.

Whether America chooses to implement the deleveraging practice of a Debt Jubilee (which I seriously doubt) or just keeps promoting monetary gimmicks to delay the inevitable implosion (more likely) is largely moot for the purpose of this writing. I’m more interested in the question of what comes next? And I find it useful to start looking for ways to escape from the financial system that has kept millions of people trapped in debt and held hostage to inflationary credit bubbles.

This is not at all to suggest that everyone needs to immediately go “cold turkey” on the banking system. Honest bankers—those dreaded “money changers” some folks mistakenly criticize—can continue to play a vital role in keeping transactions secure, liquid and transparent. ATM vendors and credit card companies do an excellent job of that already, unless you’d rather pay for a new car with a bag of gold coins and settle the bill for a family dinner with a purse of silver shillings. (The most brazen of political windbags uncritically accept bank counterfeiting but bitterly complain about $2 ATM convenience fees. In other words, financial commentary has long been a magnet for charlatans and quacks.)

Since the experts are largely preoccupied with either exploiting the system or droning on in futility, I’ll do my best at offering the first original idea in financial oversight (that is not totally ridiculous) since at least as long as I can remember. To the dismay of both anti-government purists and pro-government authoritarians, I think there is a positive role that federal and state *governments* can play in keeping the financial scales fair and balanced—if and when sanity ever returns to this land.

Regardless of when and where economic stability next becomes viable, I find it worthwhile to picture a valid target to shoot for—instead of blindly hunting for ogres with plastic spoons. (Left-wing statists shouldn’t get too excited; I’m not suggesting an expanded role for the federal government. And I’m not advocating a return to unregulated “free banking” panics or any fixed-rate metal “standard” either. That chicanery is neither original nor rational—as much as some economics professors may insist otherwise.)

The conclusion I draw from reading a variety of economic viewpoints, working in the “real world” of the private sector (where difficult problems get solved once in a while) and talking to some professional bankers is: lots of folks are saying some interesting things (along with plenty of nonsense) regarding the tail end results of financial manipulation, but most of the public experts seem to be dodging the core issues. Their standard business model of preaching to the converted (i.e., pandering)—always keeping it as safe as possible—seems to preclude common sense solutions that challenge their own prevailing orthodoxies.

For instance, even the best analysts I can find usually avoid the vital topic of rampant, ongoing counterfeiting—not just by the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury, but by private bankers as well. Another huge void is the malevolence of fiat “legal tender” mandates, a vapid term that ignores the violent nature of that practice. As a result, I can’t find anything coherent addressing what to do about those central problems or the staggering debt crisis.

Whining about evil corporate “oligarchs” and “plutocrats” is so dumb I won’t waste much time arguing against that flimsy faux-populist platform. In banking and pretty much everything else, conservatives prefer losing with dignity instead of getting their hands dirty standing up for anything meaningful. I can’t recall anything worthwhile from that camp in at least the last 30 years. Liberal talking points about “public banking” (whatever that means) are about as impressive. In banking and elsewhere, the dominant liberal view reduces to: don’t look for evidence. Trust my unproven theories, immediately, upon everyone. And don’t question my motives or methods. Both are as pure as the “oligarchs” who sponsor my campaign.

That leaves us in a bind. All we have left on financial affairs are some anti-government fussbudgets who put up a bold front kicking the dead corpse of Keynesianism or whatever stuffed suit governs the Federal Reserve, then quickly flame out when it comes to new ideas or practical implementation. Simply urging Washington to Abolish the Fed is not a working solution since it is rejected by at least 95% of Congress and probably similar levels of the general public. Furthermore, it does nothing to address America’s 300+ year burden of private bank counterfeiting—even though Fed dissolution is a good long-term goal. (Yes, fiat banking is a very old menace. All 13 British colonies in North America experienced excessive issuance of Bills of Credit between 1690 and 1764, before the practice was briefly outlawed by the Crown, then reinstated on steroids by us Yanks during the Revolutionary War.)

From a monetary standpoint, we’re left with the giant pile of coin clippings we euphemistically call “credit.” Thanks to the single-issue extremists who dominate education and the know-nothing imperials who occupy mass media, we’re led to believe that society will come crashing to a halt if bankers lose their special privileges to create loans mostly out of thin air. This is no different than saying that historical coin clippers were indispensable for stimulating growth by skimming off the edges of coins and repackaging the wealth for subsequent purchases. That’s partly true, if one narrowly focuses on the people closest to the action. If we broaden our viewpoint, however, we readily see the greater segments of society being ripped off in the process.

Corporate-Government-Media Collusion: Loss of Independence is a Killer

Of course, our state-licensed media cartel has nothing enlightening to say on any of these crucial topics. While they have precious little useful information to offer on financial matters, they do provide a long list of experts eager to intone authoritatively about “fiscal policy” vs. “monetary policy” and babble endlessly about “aggregate demand” and “liquidity injections”—hoping we’ll buy their political advice, newsletter or latest book. Somehow, these monetary wizards don’t just miss the pesky nuances of counterfeiting and legal tender mandates, but they almost always confuse bank and government credit inflation with rising consumer prices, and only provide subterfuge for the whole sordid cabal.

It just so happens that corporate media rake in billions in financial industry advertisements—and usually revel in all forms of centralized planning, superficial left/right labels notwithstanding. This year, financial services advertising in the U.S. will bring in an estimated $18 billion just in digital online promotions, second only behind all combined retail ads ($33 billion). Retailers also like reckless fiat credit to spur bloated fiat consuming, by the way. As of 2019, combined digital advertising in the U.S. ($129 billion) surpassed all other TV, radio and newspaper ads ($109 billion total) among corporate journalists willing to say or not say anything for a fee.

Some may find Legacy media’s constant habit of siding with the biggest bully on the playground to be coincidental. But I don’t. I tend to agree with foreign affairs analyst Caitlin Johnstone’s general assessment on such matters:

It has been my experience that if someone seems to be totally incompetent but every “oopsie” they make just happens to end up benefiting them, it’s manipulation you’re dealing with, not incompetence.

The highly competent but bombastic partisans of AM talk-radio and cable TV news are probably the worst offenders here, but pretty much all of commercial media soils themselves in this regard. An abundance of evidence suggests that accepting bribes gradually dulls the senses and makes a person susceptible to moral compromising and also prone to flights of megalomania. The widespread media support for mass killing, grand larceny and automatic censoring of dissenting voices would be some examples of such pathologies. Another part of that territory includes steadfastly pretending that a bribe isn’t really a bribe.

Knee-jerk conventionalists often protest at this consideration, reflexively blurting out: “We have no other choice!” Which is complete nonsense. There’s always a better way than auto-neurotic surrender to mindless corporate conformity and the intellectual straight-jacket that goes along with that heavy coat of arms. It just takes a little effort.

Put another way, loss of independence is a killer. Unfortunately, many subsidized academics fussing about these topics (incessantly for generations) don’t do much better than the comfort boys and girls of Legacy media. I find it interesting that the same folks who howl about tiny perceived “privileges” for white males somehow overlook the massive privileges of banks to multiply small seeds of their own capital into overgrown hedges of interest-bearing loans. I also find it revealing to hear large segments of official media decry petty “drug dealers” and condemn beneficial energy “fracking” but never use such inflammatory or descriptive language on the vastly more dangerous debt dealers and financial frackers poisoning our culture. That universal double standard is no accident either.

To keep things fresh and provide a few ideas you probably haven’t heard elsewhere (I certainly haven’t), I’ll move on to an important general concept.

Point of Clarity: Rejecting the ‘All or Nothing’ Canard

A major point of confusion leading to enormous misapplication of “monetary policy” is the false option of total federal control versus state/local government monitoring. Thanks to so much political noise from professional pundits and leashed academics, these options are either blurred together or completely obscured with the foolish choice of Big Government or No Government at all. Regime liberals, conservatives, socialists and libertarians all make this same mistake to various degrees. (With subsidized academia—a $649 billion industry as of the Fall 2016 to Spring 2017 school year—dominated with 97.5% of revenue going to tax-favored governmental and “non-profit” colleges, any token residue of independence was squelched long ago in the atmosphere of elites jostling for attention.)

For the rest of us who live outside that shimmering retreat, I’ll explain what I mean. Two good examples of the all-or-nothing distortion involve money and energy. With monetary policy, public officials have long maintained that Washington must have complete dominion over the issuance and valuation of currency. Even a staunch “gold standard” man like President James Garfield said so during his inaugural address of 1881:

The chief duty of the National Government in connection with the currency of the country is to coin money and declare its value.

This seemingly innocuous but dangerous assumption was last considered in three trials decided in February 1935, when the U.S. Supreme Court (by a 5-4 vote each time) approved Roosevelt’s repudiation of the gold standard that he had summarily terminated two years prior—abandoning his campaign promises from 1932. Even contemporary critics of those rulings (like Garet Garrett writing in the Saturday Evening Post) felt a need to confirm that “government must have dominion over money” because “it cannot be trusted to lie in private hands.” (Once again, we see why opposition to the New Deal failed so badly. Milquetoast Republicans have only gotten meeker since then.)

Problems with the ‘Gold Standard’ and a ‘Fixed’ Rate of Exchange

What so many conservative and libertarian “gold bugs” fail to grasp is that America’s gold standard (terminated for domestic use by FDR in 1933, then cancelled for international finance by Nixon in 1971) was a ticking time-bomb from the start. Sure, it was better than Indians trading Manhattan for jewelry beads or African chiefs exchanging human captives for guns and brass pans. But that’s not saying much.

If you regularly read any of the economic writers featured at ZeroHedge or LewRockwell—two of the better financial thought repositories in the country—you’ve probably noticed that the phrase “gold standard” tends to make conservatives woozy just like some people swoon to exaltations of “family farmers” and “senior citizens.” In all three cases, overuse of these jingoistic terms has led to very costly misunderstandings. In the case of money, the mistake is in the “standard” part. An ounce of pure gold is not a “standard,” it’s a physical measurement. It cannot be manipulated by politicians without being quickly detected by the general public. In other words, stable money not only has intrinsic value but also inherent transparency. Once you let politicians “declare its value,” we’re talking about a whole new shell game. One that’s always rigged in the house’s favor.

Furthermore, any fair economic “standard” would embrace something that a buyer and seller work out together to offset cost and quality to their mutual satisfaction. The private sector does that all the time in areas of food, clothing, housing, furniture, appliances, driving, shopping and thousands of other large and small ways. The key aspect here is balance. That is, both sides having a real voice and the freedom to make an informed choice.

A government “standard” is unilateral by nature; so is the handiwork of a corporate cartel. No real choice is offered or allowed. In monetary terms, no one voted to discontinue the gold standard in 1933 or 1971. And no one knowingly accepted fraudulent bank notes before that. Those were “edicts” or criminal deceptions issued with scant consideration given to the weaker parties, namely, citizens owning gold and companies conducting business in hard currency. Frustrated bank customers just got to stand in lines outside of a locked financial institution. Bewildered voters and business owners got smarmy speeches and newspaper headlines telling people how lucky they were to have such bold political leadership.

Considering the inherent imbalances to any government “standard,” it should be apparent that such an approach was doomed to fail from the start—as it did during numerous “panics” throughout the 1800s and most dramatically during Lincoln’s Greenback-fuel excursion against half the nation. Contrary to so much hype about the “classical” gold standard, fixed government ratios tying an ounce of gold to $20.67 in paper currency (for a while) or attaching an ounce of gold to 15 or 16 ounces of silver (during the “bimetallic” period of 1792 to 1873) were both recipes for disaster. Giving the government arbitrary power to assign a fixed rate of exchange for gold and silver, or either of those precious metals with paper dollars, invites further chicanery when inevitable cracks develop in the foundation.

To some degree, the mistakes of the Founding Fathers are understandable because the world supply of gold and silver was relatively stable during the Revolutionary era. Then in the late 1840s and early 1850s, large gold deposits discovered in California and Australia made gold more abundant in relation to silver. So silver became more valuable in a bimetallic system and was “hoarded” by the public, leaving less reserves for “debt instruments” from banks. Then in the 1860s and 1870s, miners at the Comstock Load in Nevada brought tens of thousands of tons of silver to the surface, plunging silver prices and leading to public storage (i.e., private credit) of the more valuable gold. Subsequent discoveries of gold in South Africa and Alaska in the 1880s and 1890s further destabilized the legally “fixed ratio” approach (then in dollars to gold) in a sclerotic federal system.

In the more decentralized energy sector, petroleum markets have consistently adjusted in a significantly more volatile supply and demand landscape for over a century—despite the monetized “shale boom” in the U.S. and OPEC attempts at price fixing in recent generations. Thankfully, America had some semblance of a free press and a (privately) well-educated populace when petroleum became widely available in the late 19th century. Politicians and their corporate sponsors have not quite been able to permanently corner the oil market to fleece the public—although J.D. Rockefeller and his Standard Oil monolith gave it their best shot.

Compared to the great robber baron of Standard Oil, commercial bankers got a two century head start in rigging the financial scales, bailing out kings during periods of war and funding corporations desperate to monopolize some emerging market—always at a steep price. When modern banking—including the lure of promissory bank notes—became commercially viable in the 17th century, there was no free press and no widespread understanding of economics. Ever since, wealthy banking clans have had the means to multiply every dollar of initial capital and subsequent deposits into $5 or $10 dollars of fiat credit—or even more among “wildcat” banks of the 19th century that got really hungry then soon went belly up.

The ongoing money multiplier effect (lost in jargon about “fractions” and “reserves”) helps explain why the U.S. has a total of $75.5 trillion (as of 4th Quarter 2019) in outstanding credit (same as debt), but only $4.0 trillion circulating in M1 physical cash plus checking accounts (4Q 2019). The M2 money supply (M1 plus savings accounts and money market funds) then stood at $15.3 trillion, largely inflated by the $75.5T in easy credit.

Nevertheless, liberal and neocon economists insist that “banks do not create money out of thin air.” So when banks instantly conjured trillions in today’s dollars to finance World Wars I and II (and hundreds of other conflicts before and after that, and the welfare state of the 1930s to present) this wasn’t “money creation.” No, not at all. Those civic-minded institutions actually had war chests of real money tucked away precisely for those contingencies. Thank goodness we have charitable bankers to Make Warfare and Welfare Great for All Times! This faux-liberal and neo-clown ideology may reflect some people’s desire for fiat deficit spending to fund their social engineering adventures. And such experts may possibly be angling for a job in central banking or at a government university, both of which also admire unlimited deficit spending.

The more “conservative” bankers, likewise, enjoy deficit financing from “thin air” or technically their computer terminals. And they learned from experience that when the inevitable credit cycle leads to a contraction (people consuming more and more resources to pay down prior debts instead of buying new items), fire sale bargains would be theirs for the taking. Fiat bankers always made sure to obtain inside access to princes, presidents and corporate boards who all wanted rapid funding for their various speculative projects to rob and pillage.

As an independent press became boisterous in the late 1800s and early 1900s, savvy bankers just bought off the publishers or bludgeoned anyone who had figured out their schemes. The popular Radio Priest, Father Charles Coughlin, was the last one who dared to speak out against banking corruption during the 1930s, and was systematically destroyed by FDR and other powerful entities as a public example. Independent newspaper publishers William Randolph Hearst and Robert McCormick—both immensely popular in their days—didn’t directly go after the banking industry, but fought back against reckless fiat spending and met a similar fate.

But rampant counterfeiting privileges were and are not the only weapons tucked away in the bankers’ gilded briefcases.

The Violent Origin of Fiat ‘Legal Tender’

Here is another area where it helps to go back to the beginning to understand what’s happing today. The term “legal tender” has been so stripped of its original meaning as to now imply that we’re allowed the privilege to use some specific type of currency. Even in the late 19th century, the ridiculous nature of fiat money was lampooned in the press, as shown in this 1876 illustration by Thomas Nast.

In reality, merchants are forced to use anything declared “legal tender,” no matter how worthless, with no questions asked. If a creditor declines to accept any legal tender, the debt is immediately cancelled. That critical “fiat” mandate allows banks and governments to counterfeit and debase to their hearts’ content, as central banks across the world are currently doing.

As of early April, financial guru Egon von Greyerz noted that global debt was $14 trillion in 1981, but jumped 19X to $265 trillion in 2020. Fiat “legal tender” mandates played a major factor in that explosion of easy credit becoming crushing debt. It also begs the question that government officials refuse to answer: If central banks and/or private banks are not counterfeiting credit from “thin air”—where is all this debt coming from?

How did we get something so plainly absurd? Mainstream economic texts (and Wikipedia’s account for legal tender) strangely omit its origin. For that, I was lucky to stumble across Richard Maybury’s book Whatever Happened to Penny Candy a few years ago. In the sixth edition (published in 2010) page 35, he states:

Back in 1270 A.D. a government that ruled much of Asia was led by Kublai Khan. … He wanted silver and gold very badly, so he invented paper money, “paper gold,” as a substitute. If he needed twenty ounces of gold to buy something, he would write “Twenty Ounces of Gold” on a slip of paper and sign his name to it.

The above passage gives a good representation of Mr. Maybury’s writing style in this book, which is intended for younger audiences (as the gumball machine on the front cover also indicates). After subsequently reading other more “scholarly” economic texts, I recently went back and re-read Penny Candy and found a new appreciation for Maybury’s clear, and sometimes unflinching, information presented in such simple prose.

By the way, I’ve made it a point to skip the obligatory references to economic royalty for this essay. Sure, I’ve read a bunch of their stuff, and very little of it impresses me. I’ll elaborate to that end in my next writing in a month or so. For this article, I deliberately chose to bypass the academic jet set and use readily available internet experts as much as possible. One other exceptional book that helped my general understanding of 1920s to 1940s economic history is Robert Murphy’s Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal. A nice feature of Mr. Murphy’s book (which I’ll be quoting as “P.I. Guide” for short) is his inclusion of lengthy excerpts from other good books on those related subjects.

As for legal tender, Mr. Maybury’s choice of target audience probably led him to be generous with Kublai Khan (“a pretty mean guy”). So I’ll elaborate a bit for us hardy adults. The brutal Mongolian emperor Kublai Khan was the grandson of Genghis Khan, a complete madman who mined new depths of savagery against his conquered opponents and no doubt contributed to the climate of fear that later made fiat currency acceptable. In a recent account on China’s significantly milder crackdown on Hong Kong protests, the Economist notes Kublai Khan’s tactics in which his “Vanquished local rulers, if lucky, might be granted a princely death, sewn into a sack and then trampled by horses.”

In Wikipedia’s multi-culti whitewash of Kublai Khan’s history, it skips the brutalities but does obliquely mention “Kublai Khan is considered to be the first fiat money maker.” In a more interesting side note they add:

To ensure its use, Kublai’s government confiscated gold and silver from private citizens and foreign merchants, but traders received government-issued notes in exchange.

Supporters of Franklin Roosevelt may be surprised that a progressive champion of the 20th century used similar economic tactics as one of the cruelest barbarians in world history. But FDR’s confiscation of gold in 1933 showed utter contempt for the American public while it wreaked havoc on the U.S. economy. His mad drive to bring the nation into Europe’s next war less than a decade later arguably showed a similar contempt.

Moving on to the French Revolution, the “legal tender” approach would once more be used to aid mob justice. Maybury notes:

In the 1790s, the French government was doing the same thing Kublai Khan had done. It was printing phony money and backing that money with a legal tender law. If a person refused to accept the paper money in trade for his goods or services, his head was chopped off by the guillotine.

Around that same time, during our own Revolutionary War, America’s democratic leaders were equally persistent but a bit less violent. When the early U.S. government was printing worthless Continental dollars, in Mr. Maybury’s words: “anyone who violated the legal tender laws was charged with treason and thrown in jail.”

After what Lincoln did to the South (using Greenbacks as legal tender), Wilson did during World War I (using Federal Reserve Notes), Roosevelt did during his Depression and World War II—plus generations of mass schooling and state-sponsored media—American conformity is such that the inherent abuse of “legal tender” statutes barely gets noticed.

Designing A More Stable Currency System: Monitored Weight and Purity, Not Corporate Credit Sprees, Not Political Monetary Values

With mainstream press independence now in tatters, it’s rarely acknowledged that government always had (and still has) the option of allowing competing currencies with 100% gold or silver backing, to be monitored for reserve quantities and purity instead of consolidating complete and arbitrary control over the entire process to a quasi-federal agency. Why does that matter? After ceding control of monetary policy in 1913, government (and banking) competence in protecting the value of money went so poorly that anyone who saved a dollar back then, if they were still living today, would now have under 4 cents of equivalent purchasing power. That’s an over 96% loss of value, by the federal government’s own crooked figures. (More accurate data from ShadowStats suggest over 99% loss in U.S. dollar value for 1913 to present, when you plug in traditional BLS inflation measures starting in 1984.)

For a stark comparison to that federal debacle, we can again look to the important topic of energy, which is efficiently provided from leaving the oil and gas business largely private and decentralized. A common myth persists in Hollywood and state media that the energy sector is “unregulated,” which couldn’t be farther from the truth, and may reveal their intent for making energy (like everything else) fully nationalized.

From a consumer level, public energy policy gets most visibly implemented at the gas pump and on the highway—with state and federal fuel taxes for state and federal infrastructure spending being the most obvious results. But a more important “consumer protection” occurs behind the scenes, with virtually no public appreciation. Maybe that’s because it works so well.

In the elaborate process of petroleum being located and extracted from the earth, temporarily stored at the wellsite and then transported as crude, intensively refined into useable fuels, further transported and stored at bulk terminals as a product, then finally sold in the competitive marketplace, its owners must navigate a multitude of laws and rules. These directives cover mineral rights, royalty payments, a slew of taxes, pipeline regulations from FERC, environmental controls from EPA, internal quality controls from bulk buyers, then other regulations at the pump. (Did I mention the lying liars who still call the U.S. energy sector “unregulated”?)

For this essay, I’ll focus on the tail end of the process—arguably the most reasonable and least appreciated aspect of the complex energy gauntlet. That is, ensuring that a “gallon” of gasoline is still 128 fluid ounces of strong-burning petroleum after all these years.

I can safely assume there is not a single gas station in the U.S. that is so crooked that when you try to buy a gallon of fuel you only receive a pint or a cup. If you did, that would be a criminal offense to be swiftly enforced by State Bureaus of Weights and Measures (like this one in Texas, this one in California or any of the 48 other comparable state administrations, with regional offices serving every town, village and city in America).

A similar point can be made about states ensuring the quality of gas, such that the standard 87, 89 or 93 octane fuels you see labeled at the pump actually contain that much useful energy—not gasoline diluted with 96% water. The monitoring of those important standards comes from the same state agencies noted above. (Regarding fuel quality, consistent with Congressional legislation, the federal EPA just barks out expensive and conflicting mandates such as: more ethanol (and corn fertilizer pollution) to appease the Farm Lobby; wait, make that lots more ethanol! More MTBE to cut smog pollution. No, less MTBE to reduce groundwater contamination! More BTEX to replace lead… no wait, the “b” stands for benzene, that’s bad. So, definitely less BTEX! Drop everything and re-design your refineries now or we will shut you down!!! Besides that expert advice, the EPA doesn’t actually help the public ensure the stated octane rating of gasoline is what it’s supposed to be. The private sector does most of the hard work; state agencies keep a steady watch. And thousands of gas stations across the land help provide freedom of mobility to the entire nation.)

That is to say, Americans benefit from transparent government monitoring at the point of sale, not manipulative federal control from oil well to refinery to transportation to gas station. Certainly not from the government outlawing, then monopolizing and secretly administering all “hard” measures of quantity or quality (ala FDR’s gold heist of 1933 and subsequent Fed tinkering). If such a dollar-like devaluation of gasoline was ever to occur, only the most slovenly corporate shill would try to excuse that away as natural “inflation.” Come on you people! You can’t expect a gallon of liquid to still be a full gallon after 100 years! You can’t expect gasoline to actually “burn” like it once did! Yet it is. And it does.

Now I’m sure many will incline to say something like: “that’s easy… a gallon is a physical unit of measure.” But so was a “dollar,” once upon a time. As discussed in Richard Maybury’s Whatever Happened to Penny Candy, for centuries in the Western world, a dollar (derived from the Bohemian thaler coin) was universally understood to be a fixed weight and purity of silver within a given region, not a political “standard” to be arbitrarily altered on a king’s whim. (The U.S. Treasury’s own gold certificates loosely mimicked this concept for mainly $20 bills and above until 1933 and their silver certificates did likewise for $1, $5 and $10 bills until 1964.) The vital tool of a stable currency helped societies climb out of the depths of the Dark Ages and feudal bondage by establishing a sound economic foundation for trade and investment. Without a stable currency, servitude to tyrannical overlords and remote bureaucracies is now making a resurgence—although ruling elites never connect the dots on this elementary cause/effect relationship.

As far as stability goes, with about 190,000 tons of gold now residing in human hands, that should provide an excellent anchor for any financial storms that our cast of political and corporate leaders steer themselves into from year to year. The alternative of “rubber dollars”—to borrow a phrase from former New York Governor and Democratic critic of the New Deal, Al Smith—has proven to provide only an illusion of temporary stability.

The politicized management of the money supply—throughout the tumultuous 1800s, getting worse in 1913, shooting for the moon in 1933, then completely launching into the abyss in 1971—has consistently failed in its mission to protect the value of our currency. The appeasers and crooks running the federal government, education, mass media and major banks just make effective “regulation” look complicated with their fiat junk money and flurry of technical jargon to mask their intentions. But protecting the value of real money is not that difficult, if we stay focused on what matters, and reject the false all-or-nothing extremism of the chattering classes.

A Valid Role for the Feds?

Is there any valid role for the federal government in effective monetary policy? Sure. It’s called “regulating interstate commerce,” as originally intended by the Founders. This concept is also backed by a common sense recognition of what works in the real world versus what may seem plausible in academic philosophy models.

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution conveys federal power to “regulate Commerce… among the several States” and calls for the “Punishment of counterfeiting.” Although both quoted terms are poorly defined, a Wild West interpretation of anything goes relating to private bank counterfeiting—or even a managed Federal fiat system—would seem absurd.

The same section of the Constitution establishes a federal role:

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

“To coin Money” explicitly signifies hard currency. Since the passage deals with money and nothing else, fixing a standard cannot reasonably be read to mean arbitrary measures of money nor issuing paper fiat currency—the latter of which eludes both weighing and measuring. Furthermore, the Founders were probably well aware of the inflationary disasters experienced by all 13 colonies during the early to mid-1700s (Bills of Credit) and certainly the experiment with worthless paper Continentals during the Revolutionary War.

Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution goes on to state:

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another;

Here we see a prohibition against federal preference favoring one state over another. Since all 13 colonies had ocean ports, and interstate land travel was then very difficult from a commercial standpoint, shipping from state ports was a major means of commerce.

Lastly, for this Constitutional primer, Article I, Section 10 states:

No State shall… make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;

Probably everyone reading this except trained lawyers and economists fully comprehend the significance of the “gold and silver” requirement. More broadly, I don’t see what’s so complicated in any of the above Constitutional language. Fiat paper printing and electronic credit issuance are both harmful and blatantly illegal.

So why doesn’t everyone already know this? Two big reasons come to mind. First, fiat “printing” of money from thin air allows deficit spending for offensive wars and social programs without the hassle of unpopular tax increases or Congressional oversight. This very act of inflation (not to be confused with rising prices) gives early participants valuable dollars before main street citizens figure out what’s going on. To put it mildly, politicians, bureaucrats, bankers, farmers, financial planners and public corporations all really LOVE inflationary spending.

The second contributing factor I see is the more general attitude of elitism infecting many institutions and their members who have grown to expect political favoritism. Within this toxic subculture, people trained in the mercenary arts of rhetoric and debate—augmented by a titled position of nobility (also Unconstitutional, by the way) and indoctrinated into moral relativism (complete legalistic hypocrisy, by the way)—will argue just about anything for the right price and a front row seat to the main event. In a command economy with trillions in subsidies chasing lucrative handouts for powerful special interests, there’s always a willing participant eager to join the club.

Of course, the prevailing fog of madness didn’t settle in overnight. I view it more as a gradual process of compound interest. Or what one Canadian poet called “glittering prizes and endless compromises.”

Based on common practice in early U.S. history, regulating interstate finance would logically mean preventing states from issuing special charter privileges or other credit issuing rights exclusive to their favorite campaign donors, at the expense of people living in the other 49 states. This would mean prohibiting state bans on interstate (or “branch”) banking, an extremely common and foolish state endeavor that led to thousands of U.S. bank failures in the 1930s.

In comparison, Canada did not employ such crony-capitalist bans on branch banking and did not have any bank failures during the Great Depression. It’s funny how open markets work—even in banking—and corporate-state favoritism does not. New Deal scholar, Robert Murphy, points out that (P.I. Guide, pages 125-126):

it was mostly small regional banks that failed during the banking panics of the early 1930s. … Given these realities, one would have expected that most bank offices would be served by large chains, as it were, so that the risk of regional distress could be handled through diversification. But small-town bankers successfully lobbied many state governments for “unit banking laws,” which prohibited branch banking. This made the entire U.S. banking system much more vulnerable to the deflationary stresses after the stock market crash. Thousands of U.S. banks failed during the panics of the 1930s, most in states with unit banking laws.

In contrast, Canada allowed branch banking and experienced zero bank failures during the Great Depression. According to Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz, in Canada “ten banks with 3,000-odd branches throughout the country did not even experience any runs,” even though Canada experienced the same decline in its quantity of money as the United States did. (bold mine, italics his)

Here we see a rare, but dramatic, example where federal lawmakers could and should have taken action in financial matters. Perhaps the greatest need for federal involvement in any multi-state commercial arrangement is when one or more states decide to set up barriers to restrict or prohibit citizens from another jurisdiction from engaging in business across state lines. This is precisely what “regulating interstate commerce” was all about: adjudicating state conflicts and increasing interstate commerce; not blindly allowing cross-state blockades and issuing millions of restrictive federal mandates on business.

Allowing the federal government monopoly authority to assign monetary exchange rates is a lot like giving them the power to declare energy bartering rates. For instance, some learned scholars may calculate that (at a given moment) the ratio of gasoline’s value to diesel should be 5 to 4. And maybe gasoline to ethanol should be assigned a 3 to 2 ratio. Throw in more official measures to relate those fuels to coal, natural gas, nuclear power and solar energy. And make all of them ostensibly “fixed” for years, or perhaps decades, with an encyclopedia of definitions, qualifiers and caveats for remote experts to wrangle with.

Even if “classical energy standards” appeared to work for a few weeks, as soon as new developments (like U.S. shale) or foreign competition (like Russian and Saudi oil dumping) altered the scales, society would be subject to deformities—and potentially huge, unearned profits to whatever party had access to inside information on the fluctuating value of such commodities. Politicians would have endless opportunities for kick-backs from energy producers seeking advantages against other business, as they do now from the financial sector.

The previous “gold standard” and the current Federal Reserve system don’t do anything to address the problems of fiat “legal tender” and inflationary bank credit. Political and academic exhibitionists—being habitual conflict avoiders—would rather put on airs bickering about anything except those intractable cores issue at hand. Fed critics and supporters both frequently complain about the timing and amount of central bank interest rate increases or decreases, as if adjusting the dials on a broken car stereo will somehow create a beautiful symphony. But that’s all a distraction too.

The main benefit of Fed interest rate adjustments is to keep the fiat money game going by taking the harsh edges off the predictable boom/bust credit cycle. This monetary version of “flattening the curve” keeps the virus alive and mutating within our culture. And it gives the public a false sense of security that government agencies are “doing everything they can,” which protects politicians from mass voter revolt.

A major reason, I suspect, that America is not doing anything valid to combat the growing debt problem is the garbled message being offered by so many entrenched economic experts. Gratuitous Fed bashing unquestionably adds to the confusion.

The Crash of 1873 and 11 other Major Banking Collapses: Hard to Blame all these on ‘The Fed’

One of the clues that Fed critics aren’t telling the full story comes from the many inflationary collapses that private banks caused prior to the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. One liberty guru, Michael Rozeff, writing in March on a fiercely anti-Fed website administered by Lew Rockwell, inadvertently left clues to that effect:

Financial markets are experiencing an old-fashioned panic, like those of 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893, 1907, and 1929.

Former college professor, Rozeff, was making a point about the financial “panic” of 2020 (academics just love that word) and may have accidentally admitted more than he wanted to. His list of major “panics” (more accurately, inflationary bank bubbles) largely matches the standard list of “banking crises” available from a popular online encyclopedia. Mr. Rozeff left out calamitous U.S. banking “panics” of 1792, 1796, 1896, 1901 and 1914, but we get the drift.

Those 12 painful events listed above are just the major, multi-state or nationwide banking collapses occurring over the roughly 140-year span of 1790 to the start of the Great Depression in America. This doesn’t even include the many fraudulent international credit and stock market swindles from the Netherlands’ tulip mania of the 1630s to France’s Mississippi Bubble and Britain’s South Sea Bubble around 1720, and many other ruinous plots of lesser infamy. In all three noted cases, great piles of paper wealth were created on speculative fantasies, then vanished in an instant when the credit bubbles burst.

Back in the United States, based on other anecdotal snippets, I suspect a full accounting of all state and local bank run periods in the U.S. would be much longer than those 12 listed dates. But such information is not readily available at this point. That information could be embarrassing to academic elders who have allowed this graft to persist for America’s entire history, while offering only snake oil and slogans to forestall the next big catastrophe.

For this segment, I’ll focus on the depression that started in 1873. A cartoon published that year of a giant ghoul named “Panic” is shown sweeping away financial garbage from Wall Street, as obtained from the link above.

Prior to the Great Depression of 1929-45, the longest depression in the U.S. ran from October 1873 to March 1879. This painful 65-month contraction was a period of “tens of thousands of farms that had been foreclosed… few banks that had come through unscathed; of many men who were jobless and mobs that roamed the streets” as future U.S. Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon (1855-1937) would later tell President Hoover, as recounted in Hoover’s memoirs. (P.I. Guide, pages 28-29).

Sloppy historians now call this “The Panic of 1873,” making it sound like an emotional public overreaction caused the problem, which was hardly the case. If we were to assign a more accurate title for this event, it could be known as the Greenback Depression or possibly the Railroad Bubble Depression.

For a little more background, I’ll refer to our very own Public Broadcasting System:

Since the end of the Civil War, railroad construction in the United States had been booming. Between 1866 and 1873, 35,000 miles of new track were laid across the country. Railroads were the nation’s largest non-agricultural employer. Banks and other industries were putting their money in railroads. So when the banking firm of Jay Cooke and Company, a firm heavily invested in railroad construction, closed its doors on September 18, 1873, a major economic panic swept the nation.

Jay Cooke’s firm had been the government’s chief financier of the Union military effort during the Civil War. The firm then became a federal agent in the government financing of railroad construction. … A startling 89 of the country’s 364 railroads crashed into bankruptcy. A total of 18,000 businesses failed in a mere two years. By 1876, unemployment had risen to a frightening 14 percent.

What PBS couldn’t bring itself to admit: Lincoln’s Greenback war stunt encouraged banks to hand out far more loans than they had in deposits, stock speculators tried to get rich quick from the scheme, grants of free land to political allies fueled the madness, the orgy of easy credit came crashing down with a loud thud hurting millions of innocent farmers and non-farm employees for years, then big bankers like J.P. Morgan (1837–1913) swept in to gorge themselves on the carnage. A similar story is probably true of every “panic” noted above.

The standard four-step banking routine (inflate/boom/bust/mop up)—used skillfully in the 1870s and over the next three decades by the House of Morgan—helps explain why in 1913, a U.S. Congressional committee investigating the “panic” of 1907:

unanimously determined that a small cabal of financiers had gained consolidated control of numerous industries through the abuse of the public trust in the United States. … and found that the officers of J.P. Morgan & Co. also sat on the boards of directors of 112 corporations with a market capitalization of $22.5 billion (the total capitalization of the New York Stock Exchange was then estimated at $26.5 billion).

To dispel any thought that such corporate-banking collusion ended with the Federal Reserve Act, I’ll note that as of 1921, legendary Republican banker Andrew Mellon served “on the board of more than 150 corporations,” according to pro-banking author Amity Shlaes. Since Wikipedia characteristically butchered the rest of the transition story in the prior link, I’ll give it a shot.

In the banner year of 1913, bankers leveraged their own corruption to persuade politicians to create a Central Banking cabal (The Fed) that would soon help drag the nation into America’s first purely ideological war and handsomely enrich the bankers. The federal government’s failure to prevent illegal state laws against interstate banking and the states’ failures to enforce uniform weights and measures of money backed entirely by hard assets were exploited to radically amend the Constitution and create vast federal powers to confiscate personal incomes.

That’s what an objective person might call a “panicked” overreaction, to put it generously.

After the war fever of the ensuing years finally subsided, competent political leaders allowed the 1920-21 depression to naturally work itself out, with no “stimulus” shenanigans. That left the remainder of the decade largely free for business expansion and job growth, and the resumption of a longstanding practice with credit of another source.

A ‘Roaring’ Glimpse of Private Credit

The 1920s were pivotal in American history for another reason rarely mentioned: very few people then were “educated” into the belief that you can’t survive without bank credit. Oh sure, country banks had bamboozled many pioneer farmers—clinging for dear life to their free government homesteads—into believing they needed easy credit to nurse their crops from seed to market, triggering severe agricultural boom/bust cycles since the 1870s. Commercial banks had engaged some major industries (railroads, steel, oil, etc.) hungry for liquid capital to bury the competition, giving us monopolies and labor strife. (Focusing on the labor-management class warfare meme, many academics overlook the underlying harm from the artificial boom/bust credit cycle that created unemployment and business consolidation.) But beyond small-scale farming and some major industries, the general public was too busy working and saving to bother with bank credit for immediate consumption, homes or college (which few Americans then utilized).

Reliance on bank credit would not come into vogue for the general public until Hoover’s spending panic of 1932 when he eagerly signed the Federal Home Loan Bank Act. That concept was further enlarged by FDR in 1934 with his National Housing Act and its sprawling bureaucracy to convince the American public they needed to buy an entire house on long-term bank credit. Since the Hoover and New Deal approaches were pure “free lunch” economics that resisted deflationary price stabilization, those “stimulus” packages failed like everything else they cooked up from their smorgasbord of charts and tables and artificial uplift programs. The entire decade of the 1930s saw nothing but one stimulus spending/hiring/supply cutting/demand boosting/price fixing scheme after another—resulting in prolonged farm collapses, business failures, high unemployment and widespread despair.

Prior to the 1932 and 1934 federal housing laws, nearly everyone saved and paid cash for their homes. Productive businesses in the 1920s had built up their own stores of credit to sell cars, tractors, furniture, refrigerators and other appliances on secured, short-term “installment” credit, not long-term bank credit conjured mostly out of thin air. And the decade was “roaring” with high employment, wage growth, and federal budget surpluses every year.

Using common data as cited in Wikipedia, following World War I the low-tax, low-spending regimes of mainly Harding and Coolidge gave the federal government “11 consecutive surpluses that saw the [massive war] debt reduced by 36% by the end of the 1920s.” (Robert Murphy and others have made a similar point, but Wikipedia provides easier online verification.) Note that pro-stimulus economists steadfastly insist the 1920s experience to be impossible; they say only fiat deficit spending can spur economic growth during or after a recession.

The good times would last until Hoover took office in March 1929 and completely overreacted later that Fall when a bank-fueled boom in the stock market—utilized by very few Americans then—corrected itself. The educational website Sutori gives a glimpse into America’s modest credit situation in the 1920s, although I think they get cause and effect mixed up covering subsequent turmoil. (I should note that by “private credit,” I’m not referring to the stock exchange of dubious accounting, absentee ownership, corporate politicians and passive “investors” who speculate in that casino. I prefer to leave all that for the robots.)

War enthusiasts may think that a lack of bank credit will leave us defenseless. But that’s not the case. Under established practice, Washington has the right to “conscript” anyone into the local military factory or off to the battlefront as needed. For the women, children, college students and seniors left behind, they can live off of rationed food, Hollywood good cheer, and a guaranteed basic income. One might consider such people to be “credit slaves” of the federal banking store, which is not all that different from what we’re experiencing now, in times of relative domestic peace. Without access to easy credit, politicians would have a tougher time selling the public on the true costs of war, which only become apparent after a nation has committed to battle and—under the present system—the final bills come due many years later.

Although we’re far from the happier times of private credit for the masses, individuals can still move in that direction if they choose. This choice might be a little more appealing if appointed “experts” of the financial craft checked in on reality more often.

Call of the Mild: Pointless Chatter about ‘Globalism’ and ‘One Percenters’

Since the internet has proven to be an excellent tool for allowing the public to share information, I maintain hope that greater awareness of financial affairs will continue to develop. While complaints about the Fed often have some level of coherence beneath much superficial posturing, there’s a bit more to the story of counterfeit credit inflation, as I’ve tried to address.

Considerably lower down the intellectual food chain, we have the faux-populist reactionaries. Their jingoistic slogans don’t really form an “ideology,” but rather a few random thoughts grafted onto whatever convenient scapegoat is available. The divergent strains of this fevered infestation usually target “Jewish bankster money” or unspecified “corporate” treachery of the hated 1%, which only distracts people from real corporate misdeeds. This sad but energetic lot would include the Occupy Wall Street protesters who got dressed up as corporate zombies and marched through lower Manhattan in 2011 with signs saying “money hungry fascists are dead inside.” For people seeking more of that stuff, stayed tuned for the comments section, where the undead live forever.

Along those lines, the monotonous opponents of “globalism” should help us understand—what on earth are you fussing about? If you’re against global government, I agree. If you’re against international trade, count me out. If you’re resentful towards any person anywhere in the world earning one dollar more than the laziest, dumbest and greediest person in your village… please state that clearly up front, then just go away. Whining about unspecified dangers of globalism just feeds our state of confusion and empowers the evil “One Percenters” that profit enormously from government favor.

What’s so good about “global” or rather international trade? Well, since Robert Murphy answered that succinctly, I’ll just quote him:

If every individual were forced to grow his own food, sew his own clothes, and build his own home, it would certainly “create employment”—people would be working fifteen-hour days just to survive. (P.I. Guide, page 45)

Instead of that atomized individualism, when people are given “the option to specialize in one occupation” while profitably “trading the surplus with others” it allows everyone to work less and live better.

For the protectionist wing of the anti-globalist bloc, why stop at national borders? Why not protect local jobs at least within your given state or province? Why should anyone be legally able to buy gasoline refined in Texas, lettuce grown in California or trucks assembled in Ohio if they live outside of those states? Wouldn’t it be better if every state were fully independent (and isolated) in all economic matters?

How has U.S.-imposed economic isolationism helped Cuba, North Korea or Venezuela? Scratching beneath the veneer of indignation, most talk of “globalism” and “One Percenters” boils down to angry children banging their plastic toys on the floor. Yes, you got Mommy’s attention. Now get your poopy diaper changed and take a nap. Then maybe formulate an argument with some merit.

One note I’ll add on internet relevance: without independent websites balancing the relentless establishment media narratives, we probably would have seen the Deep State take out an elected president (as it did with Nixon) and we likely would already be fighting World War III against Syria, Iran, Russia and/or China as the state media is frothing for.

If ever there was an opportunity to finally loosen the corrupt and parasitic financial industry’s stranglehold on the U.S. economy, now is probably the best chance we’ve had in all of American history. But we would all do well to start with a solid grasp of core topics and not get lost in the weeds of Keynesian neoliberalism rewarding the One Percenters with centralized banksters’ globalist plutocracy!

Good grief, that’s a great way to suck the life out of any thinking individual’s skull or neutralize any opposition movement that may coalesce in the future. Thanks to so much confusion promoted by misguided college professors, other institutional speakers and some internet fundraiser-newsletter-bloggers, these relatively easy banking concepts have been mystified to sound unduly complicated. But they’re not.

Conclusion

At some point each person needs to make a decision. We can only spend so many years attending classroom lectures, listening to celebrity mumblers and filling our minds with angry rants from professional pundits before it either sparks a person to action or lulls a person to sleep.

You’d think that people who spend decades writing financial newsletters and others with lofty titles and advanced degrees might not be so quick to fall for the sham choice of Big Government or No Government. Yet establishment liberals, conservatives, socialists and libertarians all make this same mistake. Constantly.

The false option of Bank Credit or No Credit is just another lie that goes along with all their other goofy fundraising narratives. Although fiat credit inflation makes it more difficult now, people have always had the option of private savings and investment. Businesses also have the option to extend secure, short-term credit to their customers or for their own capital projects as they see fit. Both of those “natural” options tend to be self-limiting and self-regulating, to cite every armchair bureaucrat’s favorite word. But our hyper-legalistic culture of anti-growth mania makes that choice difficult as well.

What we’re each left with is an individual decision to keep drifting into the abyss of manufactured credit servitude or to start rebuilding something more sustainable from the ground up (although we’d be “starting” at both an advanced state of technology and an advanced stage of dysfunction).

To accomplish the latter, I find it helpful to remember: All bank credit is inflationary. All credit inflation involves counterfeiting. And all counterfeiting amounts to organized theft. Nothing good can come from that.

Email: [email protected]

 
• Category: Economics, History • Tags: Banking Industry, Debt, Dollar 
Hide 155 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. My solution is: end banks entirely. The stock market can be closed as well.

    When you’re born, you receive a digital governmental account you may store your money if you want. The end.

    About money creation: it’s obvious it should be created debt-free by the government, but this money must be either backed by labor or energy, in other words, production. You can’t create money for anything, everything, this would be truly inflationary.

    How to release money on the economy? To flood it when needed, or to reduce it when there’s too much?
    Lending should be abolished. Usury should be a capital crime again. Interest is no more but a fable.
    First, through governmental spending debt-free money build infrastructure.
    Secondly and most importantly, Money should be created in the low level by giving it to people who will create value.

    Example:
    You want to build a home.
    You’ll receive the money to buy every material, and you’ll be compesated also for your labor (considering you built it alone).
    Then, money was created to match the value of the house (all of the materials), and money was created to reward your labor, vision, initiative.

    This isn’t quite easy to implement, though. You would need a team of public oversees to see if you’re not misusing the money, stealing it, or if you’re not working correctly, or whatever.

    This could work extremely well in a village, a neo-feud (which there will be many in the future).
    But it’s quite unmanageable in big cities.

    To add in this discussion, I should say reading Stephen Zarlenga’s book is a must, as is Ellen Brown’s.

    • Disagree: schnellandine
    • Replies: @animalogic
    , @Paul holland
  2. Ruckus says:

    Good Goyim.

    • Replies: @NumaPompilus
  3. Pft says:

    I’d start simple.

    Bring back usury laws capping interest rates on credit and limiting interest rates on savings

    The problem isn’t the Fed Reserve so much as the Fed Reserve System which makes banking a cartel and eliminated competition between banks.

    The other problem is control over money creation. If government can issue bonds and treasuries promising interest in return for dollars created by the Fed, or investors from institutions who create money with loans, or countries who buy government bonds with excess dollars, then the government can simply pay their bills directly with money they create .

    Indeed, taxes would not be needed to finance government programs, they would just be levied to regulate behavior.

    Unfortunately is the entire system is based on enriching the 1 % and making the rest debt and wage slaves .

    I do think there will be a financial reset, might even include a jubilee, but it will serve the interests of the 1% and make complete slaves of us all. Digital currency will be provided to live on and limited to those with sufficient social credit scores (which determines how much you get). Fall below a certain score and pffft. RIP

    • Agree: Sam J.
  4. @Ruckus

    Yes, he basically said everything au contraire.

    The Colonial Bills of Credit were what made the 13 Colonies grow and prosper. The Revolutionary War was fought over it, as opposed to the forced (((British))) metalism.
    Lincoln also won the war due to his Greenbacks, and was probably murdered by bankers because that represented their demise.

    Fiat is not the problem. Private Banks are, Debt-Money is (and yes, you can have Debt-Free Fiat).
    Anyone who advocates Gold or Silver as money is completely unaware of what money is, and why it’s not a commodity.

    • Agree: Pheasant, Mefobills, Sam J.
    • Replies: @Pheasant
    , @Mefobills
  5. @NumaPompilus

    “About money creation: it’s obvious it should be created debt-free by the government, but this money must be either backed by labor or energy, in other words, production.”
    This little statement is worth the entirety of the above rambling, confused, & vituperative article.
    The writer is a (closet) gold bug — but, denies it. His views on “money” reveal someone who can’t escape the concept of a currency linked to a “real” standard value… “weights & measures”….
    (his reference to “thalers” is a give away).
    “Money” is a practical, but also psychological means of transacting exchange & applying (temporary) value.(today it’s worth X, 10 minutes later, it’s worth Y. Why? Supply & demand…. )
    The writer confuses currency with money.
    (thus, money creation by banks is constantly refered to as counterfeiting). No where does the writer reflect that monetary inflation can be a problem — when the price of labour detaches from that inflation. It doesn’t matter if the candy costs a cent or dollar IF average wages accurately reflect that “inflation”. (not that I’m suggesting inflation of goods & service prices OR of assets is not problematic or indeed dangerous given the capacity of the 1% to exploit the rest via inflation).
    Another, telling admission: the author simply discards “national” banks. Try (Nth or Sth?? Dakota for the benefits of such institutions)
    It’s not that I’m not unsympathetic to many of the writer’s points — however, 10,000 words (& insults) later & it’s hard not to just feel… exhausted.

    • Agree: Pheasant, Realist
  6. Anonymous[428] • Disclaimer says:

    “Even a staunch “gold standard” man like President James Garfield said so during his inaugural address of 1881:” <==Thomas W. House, a gun runner, financier, and agent of the Rothschild's during the Civil War, who was linked to the anti-Lincoln, pro-banker interests. ” hated Garfield because Garfield refused the British effort to extract by taxation American wealth into the profits structure of privatized banking.

    The British, hell bent on getting control of the world’s supply of oil under the Ottoman Empire had to get private banking control over income tax in order to collateralize anticipated bank losses certain to happen as the British expected the bank to lead to already bankrupt European States soon to be involved in WWI. In 1890s, tax on personal incomes was unconstitutional. (WWI was enabled by the Federal Reserve Act, 16th Amendment and the Income Tax Law all happened in 1913, WWI started in 1914).

    The gold standard was not about a stable money supply, it was about an unlimited sea of collateral so the bank could finance wars and what I call organized crime throughout the world.

    amendment was 16 not 26 sorry

    • Replies: @Realist
  7. Exile says:

    You lost me at “95% of Congress…”

    If our range of acceptable solutions is going to be dictated by what Congress is presently wiling to sign off on, this piece is kabuki intended to send readers into some intellectually Onanistic cul de sac.

    Too Fake, Didn’t Read.

  8. Miro23 says:

    Some thoughts on all this:

    An ounce of pure gold is not a “standard,” it’s a physical measurement. It cannot be manipulated by politicians without being quickly detected by the general public. In other words, stable money not only has intrinsic value but also inherent transparency.

    This is the point. Things like gasoline, farmland and gold can’t themselves be printed. Excess money issuance just increases their price.

    After ceding control of monetary policy in 1913, government (and banking) competence in protecting the value of money went so poorly that anyone who saved a dollar back then, if they were still living today, would now have under 4 cents of equivalent purchasing power. That’s an over 96% loss of value, by the federal government’s own crooked figures.

    … fiat “printing” of money from thin air allows deficit spending for offensive wars and social programs without the hassle of unpopular tax increases or Congressional oversight. This very act of inflation (not to be confused with rising prices) gives early participants valuable dollars before main street citizens figure out what’s going on. To put it mildly, politicians, bureaucrats, bankers, farmers, financial planners and public corporations all really LOVE inflationary spending.

    This is how you fund $ trillion Middle East wars without the public objecting. If every American household had to pay a $ 20.000 supplementary WOT tax (which they’ve rather taken on through debt) there would be a national anti-war movement.

    This doesn’t even include the many fraudulent international credit and stock market swindles from the Netherlands’ tulip mania of the 1630s to France’s Mississippi Bubble and Britain’s South Sea Bubble around 1720, and many other ruinous plots of lesser infamy. In all three noted cases, great piles of paper wealth were created on speculative fantasies, then vanished in an instant when the credit bubbles burst.

    The “night singer of shares” sold stock on the streets during the South Sea Bubble (Amsterdam, 1720)

    The standard four-step banking routine (inflate/boom/bust/mop up)—used skillfully in the 1870s and over the next three decades by the House of Morgan

    Still going strong: ZIRP (Zero Interest Rate Policy)/speculative bubble/panic bust/QE “rescue” of well connected speculators.

    Prior to the 1932 and 1934 federal housing laws, nearly everyone saved and paid cash for their homes. Productive businesses in the 1920s had built up their own stores of credit to sell cars, tractors, furniture, refrigerators and other appliances on secured, short-term “installment” credit,

    This is OK and works if the businesses retain the credit risk on their books (i.e. carefully check out who gets a loan).

    What’s so good about “global” or rather international trade? Well, since Robert Murphy answered that succinctly, I’ll just quote him:

    If every individual were forced to grow his own food, sew his own clothes, and build his own home, it would certainly “create employment”—people would be working fifteen-hour days just to survive. (P.I. Guide, page 45)

    True enough, but prior to digitalization and globalization (1975+) the West had a good balance of industries, manufacturing and trade that matched education and skills with jobs to provide social stability.

    Globalization (Asian manufacturing) introduced such large price differentials that whole sectors of Western industry collapsed – along with the jobs and skills. Western manufacturers became importers and collected record profits (part directed towards politicians and academics as bribes to keep the game going).

    • Replies: @Steve Penfield
  9. Bravo! Much of what needs to be said, and righteously condemning much of the meaningless rhetoric.

    The bulk of the essay, however, is directly analogous to the object of a conspiracy to defraud, instead of dealing with the much easier to understand means by which it is achieved.

    More specifically, what the nominal bankers do is not counterfeiting – both in fact and in law it is suborning perjury and forgery.

    In the vast majority of cases, the first material act that a nominal borrower has to do under a mortgage transaction is to attend at the office of a lawyer or solicitor and swear under oath and penalty of perjury that the bank has already paid them the alleged loan proceeds when it has not done so in fact.

    The lawyer or solicitor then registers the falsified security (a forgery-in-law) at the public land title office, which is an objective act of conversion or money-laundering, and then the bank regardless converts the registration of the false document on its own books and that is where the money comes from. Banks don’t create money out of thin air – they create it by converting false receipts.

    Here is a brief blog on the process:

    One fine afternoon at the lawyer’s office

    Globally, the USD-equivalent of some $250 trillion ($250,000,000,000,000) turns on the following conversation that obviously should happen but which never happens. The scene is a lawyer’s office in Victoria, Canada (but it’s the same all over the world):

    Kevin (A financial solicitor): Hi John, how’s it going?

    John (A local entrepreneur and owner of ten hotel / motel properties, and who employs about 300 people): Pretty good Kevin, but I’m in a bit of a rush as usual. Do you have those mortgage papers on the new building on Queens Street for me to sign?

    Kevin: Yes I have them right here. The bank’s solicitor sent them over this morning.

    John: Great – just let me have a quick look. Ok – Principal amount is $2.1 million, interest rate is 7.75% – Ouch! – and the monthly payments are $17,000. Ok where do I sign?

    Oh wait! – I see here the clause on the first page states:

    In consideration of the Principal Amount of lawful money of Canada, now paid by the [bank] to the [borrower], the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, the [borrower] doth grant and mortgage unto the [bank], its successors and assigns forever, ALL AND SINGULAR the Lands subject only to the Permitted Encumbrances.

    So they’ve already paid us the loan proceeds?

    Kevin: No. No. That will still take a few days, and not until after the mortgage is registered at the Land Title Office.

    John: But I thought that I have to swear this under oath and penalty of perjury?

    Kevin: That’s right.

    John: You want me to swear under oath and penalty of perjury and then register a security that states categorically that I have already received $2.1 million of “lawful money of Canada” from the bank, and “now paid” and “the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged” when we both know that that isn’t true?

    Isn’t that illegal? I can’t see how that could not be illegal? In fact I’m pretty sure it is a criminal offence. And if we then register it, then isn’t that technically like conversion or money-laundering?

    Kevin: Calm down John. It’s just routine. That’s just how it’s done.

    John: But under the bank’s term letter I have to pay a total of $16,000 in legal fees – at $8,000 for you and another $8,000 for the bank’s solicitor – for you both to advise me that it is ok to swear under oath and penalty of perjury that I have already received a payment of $2.1 million from the bank when the bank hasn’t paid me anything and I haven’t received anything?

    Both you and the bank’s solicitor are members of the Bar Association aren’t you?

    Kevin: Yes of course.

    John: And the Bar Association doesn’t have any rules about advising clients to swear false affidavits and registering falsified securities and false receipts at the Land Title Office?

    Kevin: You ask too many questions John. I told you it’s routine.

    John: But the moment the security is registered the bank will be $4.2 million richer. I will have advanced $2.1 million of real-estate-secured-credit to the bank by agreeing unconditionally that I owe it $2.1 million plus interest, while the security itself states exactly the opposite and that the bank has already paid me $2.1 million of lawful money of Canada. That can’t possibly be legal.

    Kevin: Ok now you’re starting to piss me off. Do you want the loan or don’t you? If you do, then raise your right hand, swear, and sign the damn papers. If you don’t, then there is the door.

    ____

    Congratulations. Now you know where all the money comes from.

    The most specific criminal act that John was thinking of is called suborning perjury. His lawyer was counselling him to commit an act of perjury by swearing under oath and penalty of perjury and to bear false witness against his corporate entity that he had witnessed that corporate entity commit an act of debt by receiving a $2.1 million loan from the bank.

    Strictly speaking, the thing registered was not a mortgage but a registered libel against John’s corporate entity, and that stripped it of all its legal and equitable rights as the real creditor that was advancing real-estate-secured-credit to the bank.

    Mr. Penfield is correct, but to truly change the system, it isn’t necessary to do anything further than to enforce the existing criminal law and just arrest the bankers and the finance lawyers. It’s not as if they actually produce anything that will be missed.

  10. Pheasant says:

    ‘Considerably lower down the intellectual food chain, we have the faux-populist reactionaries. Their jingoistic slogans don’t really form an “ideology,” but rather a few random thoughts grafted onto whatever convenient scapegoat is available. The divergent strains of this fevered infestation usually target “Jewish bankster money” or unspecified “corporate” treachery of the hated 1%, which only distracts people from real corporate misdeeds. ‘

    Made it three quarters of the way through your article before I realised what your game was. By the way fiat money can work just so long as the elites are not poisoned by alien parasites.

  11. @ Steve Penfield,

    I found this about the dollar [emphasize added]:

    The word dollar has a curious and convoluted history:

    The history of the dollar

    It is derived, as a word, from Thaler, which itself comes from the Joachimsthal silver mine in Bohemia. In 1519, the silver from Joachimsthal was first used to mint the Bohemian coin Guldengroschen (‘great guilder’, made of silver but equal in value to a gold guilder). These coins were known as Joachimsthalers, and, over time, all coins became known as thalers, regardless of where they were minted.

    The name ‘thaler’ is historically related to the tolar in Slovenia and Bohemia, the daalder (one and a half Dutch guilders) in the Netherlands, the daler in Sweden, Denmark, and Norway and the Maria Theresa thaler.

    The Dutch daalder, known by its Anglicisation as ‘dollar’, circulated in the Dutch and English colonies in the Americas up until the mid-1700s, when it was gradually supplanted by Spanish eight reals (the ‘pieces of eight’ beloved of buccaneers), a coin that came to be called the ‘Spanish dollar’.

    • Thanks: Thomasina
  12. Pheasant says:
    @NumaPompilus

    ‘Yes, he basically said everything au contraire.’

    In other words like all Jews he inverted reality.

    ‘An ounce of pure gold is not a “standard,” it’s a physical measurement. It cannot be manipulated by politicians without being quickly detected by the general public. In other words, stable money not only has intrinsic value but also inherent transparency.’

    Did you spot the little verbal trick? Money is just a means for exchange. Critiques of Jews going back thousands of years state that they hoard money instead of allowing it to circulate freely because they have a different view of how it should be used- real value vs simply a medium of exchange.

    Basically this was written by a (((shill))). Usually these sorts of articles are pretty badly written but if he had not included that comment about the Jews (they just cannot help expressing thier self righteousness) I would never have noticed. There is after all an argument to be made for a gold standard just not a very good one. Also equating dollar inflation to petroleum is absurd for all sorts of reasons.

    Anyway should have checked the surname first.

  13. GMC says:

    Libya, amongst others, was a great reason why – you can’t do any normal sovereign financial ruling/banking – for your own country. The next US banking/financial renovation will have the same 1% ers making up another scam currency, unless there is a huge color revolution – that color being – blood red. The peasants will obey or else we will find a Virus for you all. lol snafu

  14. Franz says:

    Why not protect local jobs at least within your given state or province?Wouldn’t it be better if every state were fully independent (and isolated) in all economic matters?

    Yes.

    Some of us have been arguing precisely this for a long time. And it’s neither a short nor glib position, as answers go. This is why I was asked, and accepted, the role of editor for an upcoming book on just this issue. (Target pub. date, April 2021.)

    But just a short point to ponder: Most American states are now more populous than entire nations were just a short time ago. Few empires contained as many people as the average European nation does now.

    There comes a time when population density hits a point of diminishing returns. Pull borders closer in. Make small nations, as homogenous as possible, where gigantic multiethnic polities are bumbling around like tired dinosaurs now, soon to die off and bubble back up as petroleum for the de-imperial future.

    Opposing “globalism” is a gateway to greater wisdom. And it’s spreading.

    • Agree: Miro23
    • Replies: @UK
    , @Ann Nonny Mouse
  15. onebornfree says: • Website

    A good article, except for one glaring internal contradiction. What gives?

    Mr Penfield says: “I think there is a positive role that federal and state *governments* can play in keeping the financial scales fair and balanced”

    And yet, later on, he repeatedly contradicts that [naive] statement. A few examples :

    “..stable money not only has intrinsic value but also inherent transparency. Once you let politicians “declare its value,” we’re talking about a whole new shell game. One that’s always rigged in the house’s favor.”

    “A government “standard” is unilateral by nature; so is the handiwork of a corporate cartel. No real choice is offered or allowed. In monetary terms, no one voted to discontinue the gold standard in 1933 or 1971. And no one knowingly accepted fraudulent bank notes before that. Those were “edicts” or criminal deceptions issued with scant consideration given to the weaker parties, namely, citizens owning gold and companies conducting business in hard currency. ”

    “Giving the government arbitrary power to assign a fixed rate of exchange for gold and silver, or either of those precious metals with paper dollars, invites further chicanery when inevitable cracks develop in the foundation.”

    “In reality, merchants are forced to use anything declared “legal tender,” no matter how worthless, with no questions asked. If a creditor declines to accept any legal tender, the debt is immediately cancelled. That critical “fiat” mandate allows banks and governments to counterfeit and debase to their hearts’ content, as central banks across the world are currently doing.”

    “FDR’s confiscation of gold in 1933 showed utter contempt for the American public while it wreaked havoc on the U.S. economy. His mad drive to bring the nation into Europe’s next war less than a decade later arguably showed a similar contempt.”

    In other words, contrary to his earlier pronouncement:

    “I think there is a positive role that federal and state governments can play in keeping the financial scales fair and balanced”,

    … he then goes on to consistently illustrate, via historic example, exactly why the government cannot ever be trusted to regulate either the money supply, or even what form that money takes[wampum beads, tobacco, gold, paper, crypto, or whatever].

    This is because Mr Penfield does not seem to be aware of the fact that :

    1] Government “Solutions” Never Work

    Government solutions [to, and for _anything_, including- gasp!- even the regulation of gas stations and interstate commerce in general], never work, [except to enrich and further empower the government itself and its cronies/sycophants].

    “Everything government touches turns to crap” Ringo Starr

    See: “Why Government Doesn’t Work”: https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Why_Government_Doesn%27t_Work

    and ……

    2] All Governments Are Inherently Criminal

    “Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect theft [taxes], and counterfeiting [central bank monopolies], all governments are essentially, at their very cores, 100% corrupt criminal scams which cannot be “reformed”or “improved”,simply because of their innate criminal nature.” onebornfree

    “Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure” Robert LeFevere

    Otherwise, ignoring the obvious, glaring inconsistency of logic/thought regarding the imagined trustworthiness of governments, a good article.

    Nice try, I give it 7 out of 10. 🙂 .

    Regards, onebornfree

    • Replies: @Miro23
    , @the shadow
  16. sarz says:

    I recommend Ellen Brown’s Web of Debt and a sample of her many articles to Ron Unz so that he doesn’t waste space with this sort of stuff.
    http://www.webofdebt.com/

    Unz Review already carries stuff by Michael Hudson, a kindred spirit. Timely pieces by Ellen Brown would be welcome.

    • Disagree: schnellandine
    • Replies: @utu
    , @jadan
  17. Anonymous[763] • Disclaimer says:

    What about reviving the “gold clause” in private contracts? It’s elimination by FDR and Congress played its part in the institutionalized raping of their own people via inflation. How in the world can a free people be barred from privately contracting in a loan agreement to be paid back in gold bullion on the grounds it’s against public policy when Wall Street gambling on commodities and derivatives is promoted? What a fiction we live under.

  18. 865 says:

    The one mention of the mega criminal looter counterfeiter, Milton Friedman, was favorable. ‘Bout says it all. Talmudist economic theory — all money belongs in the pockets of fellow talmudists. Just ask the grownup Baby Lindbergh or Sen. McFadden. Who did the Fed’s Bernanke bail out?

  19. Hans says:

    Got a big laugh out of the “the corporate-government-media collusion” line.

  20. I haven’t read but 25% or so yet of what I know will be another fine article, Mr. Penfield. I say that not just because it’ll be pleasurable to read, but because this kind of writing does unz readers a whole lot more good than the anti-all-things-American screeds and conspiracy theories out of 1/2 the writers and the proprietor himself.

    On the gold standard. I really don’t understand your objections very well. Are you simply saying (I’m mirroring some of what Miro above said) that there should be no US dollar amount attached to any paper that represents gold? I.e., do you meant that it would be better if notes were issued by banks to say “this is 0.05 oz of gold” period, rather than “this is $20, redeemable for 0.97 oz of gold”? That $20.67 was not some arbitrary number (obviously, or it’d have been a nice round number). I would assume it was the amount of money in circulation divided by the nation’s gold reserves. If not, please inform me of how that number was arrived at.

    Once that was set, you are quite right that any change in number, other than as an update for the amount of gold in reserve, would be a breach of the deal. However, that’s what FDR was afraid of in 1933. Americans weren’t stupid – they could turn those dollars into gold as he arbitrarily changed the “exchange rate” from $20.67/oz to $35 or whatever. Hence, attempted gold confiscation by the Socialist fucker FDR.

    It was the same thing with Nixon and France in 1971. They wanted to get rid of those dollars and get their proper amount of money back. By that time after all the guns and butter, that wouldn’t do, so, whoops, we’re off the gold standard.

    Was your concern simply with the problems with bi-metal money, as the ratio of gold/silver found varies?

    Anyway, if you want to discuss this civilly that’d be great, as I think we are almost on the same page, but I still see the gold standard as the only way to stop the madness, greed, and theft of/by the big bankers.

    • Replies: @Bro43rd
    , @Steve Penfield
  21. Anonymous[106] • Disclaimer says:

    Frugality plays no part in the American lexicon. Sure would help.

  22. jadan says:

    Here’s how you protect the value of money. First you acknowledge that the value of money is the value of the law that declares that it is money. Money that has “intrinsic value” exists only in a barter system. But we do not live in a stone age economy, so our money has no intrinsic value whatsoever and is pure abstraction. Our money is an idea derived from law and declared by the legal authority of a sovereign government to be a measure of value. Physical tokens may be created to memorialize and represent this legal monetary valuation. If your law is not universally respected then your money will suffer from the same lack of respect. If you live in Zimbabwe, for example, and you are governed by lawless thugs, your money will be compost.

    Our author here, Steve Penfield, does not respect the law, or lawyers, or their agents the politicians, or government by extension. What Mr. Penfield seems to respect prinarilly is his own scintillating intellect which can be characterized as a road to nowhere. He seems to worship some elusive Platonic Ideal of money that is an immutable standard of value that exists in the never never land of his cynical imagination. And Penfield is not alone in his frustrated yearning for a world of sound money. Cryptocurrency advocates also disrespect law and politicians and government and put their faith in AI, the artificial intelligence of algorithm-based bookkeeping systems.

    Fiat money, which is often used as a term of disparagement of lawful money by stone age advocates of commodity money, is above all other definitions a public utility, like energy, water, highways and so on. It is what economist call a “natural monopoly”. A government is intended to administer such natural monopolies and it is highly unnatural (perverted) that this social utility should be entrusted to private hands.

    In conclusion, the value of money is determined by the full faith and credit of a government of the people who trust this government and endow it with its sovereign prerogatives in their own interest. When this government is politically delivered into the hands of privatizing anti-government free market idiocrats then money becomes compost and oligarchs declare a new gold standard as the mass of people die in a convenient pandemic.

    • Agree: Mefobills
    • Replies: @Realist
    , @Anonymous
  23. Realist says:
    @Anonymous

    The gold standard was not about a stable money supply, it was about an unlimited sea of collateral so the bank could finance wars and what I call organized crime throughout the world.

    You are describing the end of the gold standard. With no backing for a currency all money becomes fiat. And that was exactly the reason Nixon stopped the practice of allowing foreigners to collect gold for dollars…thus allowing him to turn on the printing presses, in part to pay for the Vietnam war…and the rest is history.

    • Replies: @Curmudgeon
    , @Mefobills
  24. Ron Paul wrote “End The Fed” a long time ago and he was right.

    Why are we ruled over by a jewish banking cartel?

    The FED encourages war by simply printing the money to fund wars. If wars had to be funded by taxes there would be no wars.

    I think Ellen Brown mentioned in “The Web of Debt” the success of both Lincoln and Hitler when they printed money outside the jewish central banking system.

    jews use money as a form of control.

    jewish groups have unlimited funding to push their globalist agenda and they corrupt the entire system with the terrible power of the purse.

    In fact, the FED is the main control point of the vast anti-white anti-Christian system that oversees government, media, academia, and every aspect of our lives.

    Gentiles should NOT have to suffer under this yoke.

    • Replies: @anon
  25. Realist says:

    Can we cut the faux Outrage over ‘The Fed’ and the evil ‘One Percenters’ and focus on illicit Counterfeiting and other core issues?

    The evil One Percenters are the ones who benefit from and promote fiat currency.

  26. Here’s a very small quibble, so please don’t take it wrong. I am under the impression that you are an environmental scientist type, going by my recollection from another article, and with no bio. here under the article. Not only that, it may not be a mistake, but just misleading, from my reading, to some of those who don’t know what you meant:

    The Octane rating of gas is a measure to give an idea of the sizes of the hydrocarbon molecules. (The comparison is to the the octane molecule, hence the name.) A higher rating means there’ll be more even burning of the fuel, as it’s compared to what be obtained with pure octane. It is not a measure of the energy content. The main thing that diminishes the energy content nowadays is the addition of ethanol.

    This is not to take away from your basic point that energy content of gasoline must be checked or people may get cheated – a job that ALSO doesn’t have to be done by government (think Underwriters Labs or ASME codes for mechanical standards) See, I had to get my Libertarian licks in here, didn’t I?

    ;-}

  27. gotmituns says:

    screw the fed and the 1 percenters. everyone should have what they need but we need a lot fewer people to begin with.

  28. Meena says:

    1 For instance, even the best analysts I can find usually avoid the vital topic of rampant, ongoing counterfeiting”

    When you cut the coin into 2 pieces and pretend on as having the doubled the value ,it is coin clippage
    When the Fed channels 3 trillions to existing 3 trillions and claim to have more liquidity with no imitate inflation ,it is coin clippage . We call it counterfeiting also . Everybody has been talking about it .

    2 “protecting property rights” All properties are built by labor . (A lot are stolen , actually most are stolen ) But to honor your principle we should robustly the protect the labor . That means the cost or value of labor shouldn’t go down because of near zero interest or negative interest next year compared to this year .

    3 The Crash of 1873 and 11 other Major Banking Collapses: Hard to Blame all these on ‘The Fed’
    No body is blaming 1913 for what happened in 1912 . But 1913 is not the solution for 1912 debate. Money can be carted and destroyed by public owned bank , The interest payment on those careered and destroyed money will be used to support the running of the banks .

    4 “excuse to trespass “rent free” on an owner’s property.”- Real estate survives and profits by insider deal -closeness to city hall, politicians, and banks and being privy to undisclosed future information .

    May be the Gov or city can support the housing of police teacher ,nursing staff ,essential workers by investing in those properties in areas that are close to where the services are rendered . May be the college that takes 40,000 per year from student can come up with building affordable dorms . The real estate market also gore any inconvenient law to death.

    5Whining about evil corporate “oligarchs” and “plutocrats” is so dumb”

    May be it’s you who dont get it.

    6 fiat banking is a very old menace” Yes it is in the hand of the bad . Commodity driven money is now utopia .Service and labor are more important and will have unlimited supply . We have to find a system of supporting the fait money with service and labor .

    7 e, our state-licensed media cartel “ Yes we agree with you . But we can use the existing laws and go after the media . We can use “ You cant shout fire in a crowded theater” provisions . Any information that hurts the nation should be labeled as faulty products intentionally provided to the users with intention to hurt . Since media has internet presence, anybody damaged or hurt by the information anywhere in the world should have the right to go after the media .

    • Agree: the shadow
  29. Realist says:
    @jadan

    In conclusion, the value of money is determined by the full faith and credit of a government of the people who trust this government and endow it with its sovereign prerogatives in their own interest.

    That is exactly correct…to describe the current situation in the US. And that is why there is no intrinsic value in our money…it is backed by the full faith and credit of a government…only an idiot would have faith or trust in the US government.

  30. Yukon Jack says: • Website

    This article begs the question what will happen to all of the debt and thus the price level of goods? If inflation is the expansion of debt money then what happens when debt implodes? Prices would fall, or deflation. So this worry of immediate hyperinflation is not correct. If 50 million in the USSA (United Socialist States of Amerika) are unemployed then how can they pay their debts, rents, mortgages? They can’t. Thus the need for Trump Bucks being passed out by the desperados at the Treasury.

    It seems to me that they are trying to save their system of debt slavery. Those bankers who have us pinned down in debt have us just where they wanted us until this coronahoax busted their hand, now they have a problem, the slaves are out of work and can’t pay.

    My visual of what is happening is a building phase of the incoming tsunami deflationary wave and debt implosion, you can see that bulge in the offshore swell, it is building up yet doesn’t look that ominous yet, then as the tsunami approaches it suddenly turns into a monster wave, and the panic hits as you run for your life to higher ground.

    In financial terms, the lust for slightly discounted Hertz cars being dumped on the market is quite foolish, the prices of these used cars is still much to high. If 500,000 bankrupted Hertz car fire sale is just starting then initial bidders are fools who soon will see their cheap car get much cheaper. They say in market trading, never try to catch a falling knife. How many cars are for sale right now, add the Hertz fleet to this glut, what is the clearing price? 5 cents on the dollar?

    Same for real estate and everything else. How much shit is for sale on craigslist right now? What happens when the public figures out that if everything is falling in price then the smart thing to do is save every penny? If you think about how many cars there are parked around Amerika, no one needs to buy any cars for the next 4 decades and we would still have to many cars.

    The batshit insane government will do the predictable, they serve the banks, they will never do the logical like Iceland, arrest the bankers and forgive the debt. The banks will demand you pay up. But the slaves can not pay up, they are out of work and the depression is just starting. The debt can not be paid nor will the bankers relent and the whore politicians who have no integrity and no vision will do the expedient and send out some cash but it won’t be nearly enough and their timing will be slow.

    Eventually they are going to print like Wiemar Germany which had the hyperinflation from 1921 to November 1923. Hitler rose to power during that time as hundreds of thousands of Germans starved and committed suicide – which is happening again with this insane coronahoax lockdown. Anyone with two functioning brain cells can see that we are the new Weimar Amerika and it is the same tribe largely responsible for our demise.

    So deflation first, then government printing and hyperinflation and the rise of extreme nationalist politics. Amerika has been and is being gutted by the ruling class and hell will follow.

  31. Truth3 says:

    Sophists use volume of argument as a weapon, this article was no less than pure sophistry.

    Misdirect, and cause confusion… the handiwork of sophistry as well.

    It’s simpler than all the buggering in this article.

    Constitutional Money (the only kind we need and deserve) is simple. Coin.

    It works well to solve so many problems simultaneously.

    Ends Government Fiat Control immediately. Can’t be created out of nothing.

    Ends Banker tricks to fool the poulation into dead end economic boom bust nonsense. Coins don’t just disappear.

    Ends Billionaire thievery. Ever see a theif with a Billion in stolen coin? Nope.

    Makes thievery far more difficult. Think about it.

    We need and deserve honest money. Coin is honest.

    Coin ends all Big Brother scenarios all at once. Think about that too. It’s worth ANY small and largely just perceived inconveniences many times over.

    Coin.

    Metal.

    Easy to implement, hard to counterfeit. Cannot be by fiat.

    Instead we have this blowhard trying to convince us that we need another version of what caused the problem.

    Go away clown. Our solution is a simple one.

  32. @Realist

    Nixon left the gold standard because the US had no gold backing the currency. Had he not, the US would have been forced to reneg on transactions. Nixon was left with the big smelly turd left to him by Congress and LBJ.
    https://nationalinterest.org/feature/who-really-killed-the-gold-standard-12435

    • Replies: @Realist
    , @Eryximachus
  33. @Realist

    …only an idiot would have faith or trust in the US government.

    Buh-b-b…but muh magic phrase “full faith and credit”!

    You, sir, are a clear and present danger to my compelling interest in self-bamboozlement. Oh, and we the people and so forth.

    Barukh ata Adonai Eloheinu, Melekh ha’olam, achooooh Javanka

    • Replies: @Realist
  34. Truth3 says:

    Considerably lower down the intellectual food chain, we have the faux-populist reactionaries. Their jingoistic slogans don’t really form an “ideology,” but rather a few random thoughts grafted onto whatever convenient scapegoat is available. The divergent strains of this fevered infestation usually target “Jewish bankster money” or unspecified “corporate” treachery of the hated 1%, which only distracts people from real corporate misdeeds. This sad but energetic lot would include the Occupy Wall Street protesters who got dressed up as corporate zombies and marched through lower Manhattan in 2011 with signs saying “money hungry fascists are dead inside.” For people seeking more of that stuff, stayed tuned for the comments section, where the undead live forever.

    Gatekeeper piece of shit shows his true purpose.

    Hijack the solution, to protect the prior fraudster thieves.

    Go to fucking Herzliya, you sophist pig. Collect your shekels and go visit the Israeli brothels full of Moldavian girls that are kept prisoner there.

    Hope the strain of VD that infects you makes your shriveled trimmed dick grow out of your nostrils.

    • LOL: Amerimutt Golems
    • Replies: @jsigur
  35. Miro23 says:
    @onebornfree

    1] Government “Solutions” Never Work
    Government solutions [to, and for _anything_, including- gasp!- even the regulation of gas stations and interstate commerce in general], never work, [except to enrich and further empower the government itself and its cronies/sycophants].

    I don’t get this at all. Government is just an operating system (set of rules) to allow the computer (society ) to carry out its many functions.

    Just like a computer without an operating system is a useless – a city with no laws is a free for all hell. Try living in London ( 9 million people) with no accepted currency, no traffic code, no police, no laws, no enforceable contracts, no rubbish collection, no water supply etc.

    Common rules are necessary but they do run at different levels:

    – Nation / State / County / City / Town / District / Local association / Family

    When people say the “Government “Solutions” Never Work” they’re often talking about a place like the US where the government has been over centralized and captured by special interests making their own rules designed to loot the public.

    It’s not a problem with government per se, it’s a problem of corruption.

    The best way to clean out the system is to move power down to the next tier (States) and give them political autonomy and their own currencies ( in the digital world, instant exchange rates between for example the Texas Dollar, California Dollar and Alaska Dollar would be easy enough).

    • Agree: the shadow
    • Replies: @onebornfree
  36. @onebornfree

    Among the valid objectins you make to the logic and content of the article are the following:

    “..stable money not only has intrinsic value but also inherent transparency. Once you let politicians “declare its value,” we’re talking about a whole new shell game. One that’s always rigged in the house’s favor.”
    “A government “standard” is unilateral by nature; so is the handiwork of a corporate cartel. No real choice is offered or allowed. In monetary terms, no one voted to discontinue the gold standard in 1933 or 1971. And no one knowingly accepted fraudulent bank notes before that. Those were “edicts” or criminal deceptions issued with scant consideration given to the weaker parties, namely, citizens owning gold and companies conducting business in hard currency. ”

    The fact, of course is that any standard has to be “unilateral by nature” that allows no individual choice in the matter. That’s why standards of weight and measures are called standards and are set by some authority. How could it be otherwise and still be used as a measure of anything.

    To make this simple, shall everyone have a voice and decide the length of an inch, a foot and a yard? If so, whose standard would be applied when determining whether a merchant has met the quantity requirements of a contract for a bolt of yarn.

    His formulation is a silly basis for addressing the issue of setting standards for making quantitative measuresments of anything and for equating such quantitative measurement for assessing the relative value of different objects, like a hundred weight of milk for a tractor.

    The article throws a lot of heat but little light on the issues it addresses.

    • Agree: paranoid goy
  37. Realist says:
    @schnellandine

    You, sir, are a clear and present danger to my compelling interest in self-bamboozlement. Oh, and we the people and so forth.

    I wouldn’t have it any other way. LOL

    • LOL: schnellandine
  38. jsigur says:

    The real problem is the banking industry is self regulated, they make up their own rules and print money without personal consequence or being charged with counterfeiting like we would be all helped by FDR when it became illegal to hold gold if you weren’t a Jewish banker. There is nothing evil about usury if you only lent money in existence, Even when we were on the Gold standard, money was routinely lent with no backing. In other words banking maneuvered its way into being above the law probably helped by goy kings who needed a lifeline to stay in power and were in no position to bargain with the financiers. Tell me, how does a king make his subjects responsible for his debt which is basically what happened in England in 1695 which mean bankers no more had to worry about bad loans not being repaid

  39. jsigur says:
    @Truth3

    don’t forget who allowed this to be published here

  40. Realist says:
    @Curmudgeon

    Nixon left the gold standard because the US had no gold backing the currency. Had he not, the US would have been forced to reneg on transactions. Nixon was left with the big smelly turd left to him by Congress and LBJ.

    Point taken. But the charade must be ended sometime. Nixon took the easy way out of a terrible situation.

    One of the differences between money and currency is supposed to be, money has intrinsic value and currency does not. US money has no intrinsic value…backed by nothing…therefore it is fiat…and the currency is fiat.

  41. Nugie says:

    Too much truth for Facebook.. Tried to post it; Facebook says someone(s) says it is abusive. Wants me to click “ok” to that. I didn’t.

  42. While the author makes a great deal about no banking failures in Canada during the 1930s, there is more to the picture than he wants to admit. The first is that, in Canada, unlike the US, individual provinces cannot own a bank such as the Bank of North Dakota. In fact, it is very difficult for banks to exist in only one province. Most could not survive and merged, hiding their failure. There have been many mergers over the last century. Additionally, there were problems within the banking industry which led to the creation of the Bank of Canada in 1935, which was privately owned. It was nationalized 3 years later after a change in government. At the time, Prime Minister King said:

    Once a nation parts with the control of its currency and credit, it matters not who makes the nations laws. Usury, once in control, will wreck any nation. Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognized as its most sacred responsibility, all talk of the sovereignty of parliament and of democracy is idle and futile.

    The nationalized bank operated outside the Bank of International Settlements until 1974 when it joined and ceded monetary policy to the BIS.
    The government borrowed from its own bank at 0% interest. The loans were against future receipts, whether taxes, licenses, or sales. Canada came through WWII with virtually no debt, and in fact had a relatively low debt until ceding control to the BIS, whereon interest had to be paid on loans. Over 80% of the country’s debt today is directly attributable to ceding control of the monetary policy.

    I note the author strenuously avoids any in depth analysis of currency. Businesses print “currency” all the time. Discount coupons are “currency”. Loyalty rewards are a form of currency. Canadian Tire used to print its own currency (now digitalised). Some cities used to allow businesses to issue parking tokens for meters. The issue is not the printing of currency, but who accepts it. While is is common in many areas close to the US/Canada border for the currencies to be interchangeable, sometimes at par, businesses on either side of the border are not required to do so.
    Also not touched on is currency manipulation. Currency is now a commodity, like bottled water. Recall the game used in New Zealand in the early 1980s, when, during an election campaign, the opposition, who was almost would win, hinted it may consider devaluing its currency. That led to a massive run on the NZ dollar which was blamed on the then government. The opposition then won a massive victory and completely reshaped New Zealand into a globalist’s dream. Massive selloffs and privatization along with foreign takeover of a huge part of the economy. Banks and the likes of Wall Street easily manipulate currencies. With the press of a button, a trade on a small country’s currency can make the value equal to its GDP disappear.
    It may be true that governments are corrupt, but that pretends corporations aren’t. The overwhelming majority of government employees are like all other employees. They just want to go to work, do their jobs, and not be bothered by the bullshit around them. It is the psychopaths, whether in government or corporations that are the problem.

  43. Please stop with this libertarian nonsense. No one believes this stuff anymore. It is not 2008 when chicken littles were predicting hyperinflation and economic collapse.

    Money is and always has been a unit of political account. Because of the difficulty of allocating capital over large areas, when city states expanded into empires they granted to third parties, what you call banks, the power to create money as debt. Loans create deposits. Banks do not lend deposits. This is as true today as it was 2,000 years ago.

    Money has value not because a few weird people think piss colored coins are pretty. It has value because the ruling sovereignty that issued it demands its payment in taxes and adjudicates civil court debts in that currency.

    The primary way a sovereignty projects power is by forcing people to use its currency. This is why those of us who understand money use Michael Hudson’s term to refer to the US economy as one of super imperialism. If you truly understood how the global economy works, you would understand that the national debt, as a percentage of dollars used for global trade, is quite small.

    You see, for countries that are monetarily sovereign (NOT Weimar, NOT Zimbabwe, NOT Argentina) national debt is simply an accounting system for global central banks, high level corporate/financial entities, and a “safe” investment that the occasional individual buys.

    Libertarianism was created by the Rockefeller Foundation to promote these lies so that “the right” would not be tempted to unilaterally pull out of the global economy as did the Axis powers of WWII. The goal of dividing the world up into smaller units of government was to eliminate their monetary sovereignty and make them dependent upon the IMF and World Bank for a future reserve currency under a new Bretton Woods System.

    We are in the process of making this transition now. All you are doing is adding to the misinformation on how money and banking works.

  44. @jsigur

    Banks do not make up their own rules. They are highly regulated. You may believe that banks are supposed to lend deposits, but that has never been true. Possession of gold was made illegal once the Bretton Woods System was implemented because all gold was intended to be used to fix exchange rates.

    No one seriously believes in the gold standard. As you rightly point out, it has never had any impact on banking. The gold standard was never about banking, but exchange rates and how they are controlled.

    You also do not understand money in England. Google tally sticks and learn.

  45. @Curmudgeon

    No, the Bretton Woods System was abandoned because it was not sufficiently flexible to allow for monetary expansion as the global economy grew. Obviously, while the West has cultural and social problems, the world is infinitely better off today than it was in 1971.

    Keynes’ Bancor is the better, more fair solution. The solution the BRICS countries are calling for.

    • Replies: @Curmudgeon
    , @jsigur
  46. @jsigur

    Tell me, how does a king make his subjects responsible for his debt which is basically what happened in England in 1695 which mean bankers no more had to worry about bad loans not being repaid

    A telling point that brought to mind an article whose author I no longer remember who made a related point about how lending to kings may have been a lucrative buisness, but what collection agency can a financier use to collect if the king refuses to pay and invokes his power against the financier.

    The intrguing answer was that you arrange for other kings to bring him in line by financing a war against the recalcitrant king. The beauty is, you don’t actually have to do it, but create situations that will threaten the king who will likely wise up and instead do what your comment suggests.

  47. Can we cut the faux Outrage over ‘The Fed’ and the evil ‘One Percenters’ and focus on illicit Counterfeiting and other core issues?

    So the people who run the illicit counterfeiting ring among the other “core” issues are not to be called out? We should not recognize them as the leaders of this system? This article cites a million reasons to be outraged at them. It also makes fun of the people who are complaining about it all. This article makes no sense. It is total nonsense. Don’t blame the oligarchs for exploiting the system they control and exploit the rest of us with. If this clown doesn’t think we don’t recognize this and have taken actions to protect ourselves from it (by buying gold bullion for instance) he is insane. There are many small businesses working outside the typical system. Of course these seem to be the target of the fake plandemic. It is our success that the oligarchs are trying to end.

    • Replies: @PetrOldSack
  48. Mefobills says:
    @Realist

    Realist says this:

    That is exactly correct…to describe the current situation in the US. And that is why there is no intrinsic value in our money…

    Jadan says this:

    If your law is not universally respected then your money will suffer from the same lack of respect. If you live in Zimbabwe, for example, and you are governed by lawless thugs, your money will be compost.

    The U.S. was hosted by privateers, especially by 1913. These privateers are money corporations, whose business model is to manufacture money. (Are Jews over-represented as stock owners of private banks? Answer = Yes.) Private banking creates money at debt, and their profit is the interest on said money (bank credit). Profits are also made with swaps of unlike kinds, and channeling into sectors to then push prices. During manufactured depressions, real assets like land, patents, and real businesses can be grabbed for a low price. Swapping real assets are transferred/swapped to cancel unpayable debts during depressions. This is how “creditor” banks came to own gold stores over time. The city of London became a “gold center” yet England had no natural gold ore in her lands.

    Both of you are correct, but Jadan is more correct. Jadan gets to the root of the problem.

    Zimbabwe was the only hyperinflation in history that was not done by private money exploiting exchange rate differences with shorts. Usually when there is monkey-shine business in monetary affairs, it is done with privateers angling from some usury, rents, and unearned income. This includes the shorting mechanism to induce hyperinflation.

    Since Zimbabwe was a negro takeover, it should be excluded from the rest of the world’s examples of hyperinflation. Zimbabwe killed off their white farmers, thus production (goods output) fell in proportion to circulating money supply, while simultaneously Zimbabwe government printed new money in excess. To Zimbabwe’s government (tribal leaders) money was something magic, and not based on the law. Cargo Cult.

  49. @Eryximachus

    Who is this we? It has nothing to do with we. It is them and for them. Everybody else just has to find a way to work around the empire to thrive. Yes the empire wants to extend its control and power but that has nothing to do with the people who do not serve or benefit from the empire which is the vast majority of the population.

    • Replies: @Eryximachus
  50. @Nugie

    Facebook says someone(s) says it is abusive.

    Though this article may have eventually triggered Faceberk censorship, it never got to that stage. Apparently for weeks now, everything from UR triggers a “Verklempt” “Verboten”.

    Is for safety much, Tovarishch.

  51. Agent76 says:

    2020.05.24 The Agenda animation: Global Debt and COVID-19 Explained

    When global business owners, economists and bank bosses call to end lockdowns, they’re often criticised for putting profit before people, but just how is the COVID-19 pandemic changing our financial foundation?

    https://newseu.cgtn.com/news/2020-05-24/The-Agenda-animation-Global-Debt-and-COVID-19-Explained-QGm1Bu1lHa/index.html

    May 21, 2013 Why the whole banking system is a scam

    Godfrey Bloom MEP • European Parliament, Strasbourg, 21 May 2013 • Speaker: Godfrey Bloom MEP, UKIP (Yorkshire & Lincolnshire)

  52. utu says:
    @Eryximachus

    “Libertarianism was created by the Rockefeller Foundation to promote these lies so that “the right” would not be tempted to unilaterally pull out of the global economy as did the Axis powers of WWII.” – This might be true. At least it would explain why libertarians always serve as the useful idiots for oligarchy.

  53. Mefobills says:
    @jsigur

    The Bank of England came into being in 1694. It was a scheme hatched in Amsterdam, and funded by Jewish stock market capital, also from Amsterdam.

    Prior to 1694, England ran on the King’s talley stick system. In 1834, retired talley sticks caused Parliament to burn. They were retired because of the new debt money banking system imposed in 1694.

    BOE was the first private stock owned, debt spreading, bank system in history. The bank in Amsterdam was a state bank. When BOE came into existence, some of the English “gold owners” were supposedly allowed to buy the stock, but then they were screwed over by the usual jewish trickery.

    The talley sticks were the king’s debt to the population in exchange for services from said population. The population then was allowed to use the kings debt as money. The talley stick money was used to pay taxes. The population payed internal debts to each other using talley stick money. Or at the large fairs, like Mayfair, they would cancel debts with script, and finally with the small amount of gold/silver coins that were available.

    Tell me, how does a king make his subjects responsible for his debt which is basically what happened in England in 1695 which mean bankers no more had to worry about bad loans not being repaid

    I’m telling you, the king was disenfranchised from his legal debt to the population with the advent of BOE. BOE post 1694 put the population into banker debt, and thus the king’s sovereignty was usurped and transferred to privateer stock owners.

  54. I stopped reading when the author started championing “debt forgiveness”. Call it stealing. I have never bought anything on credit in my life and i’m sick of bailing out 300 million morons.

    • Thanks: Achmed E. Newman
    • Replies: @paranoid goy
    , @Bro43rd
  55. @Eryximachus

    Just what does sufficiently flexible mean. The issue was there would be claims for exchange that could not be paid. I am not saying the gold standard was good or bad. Yes, it was inferior to Bancor, but superior to the notional value of a commodified currency we have today, decided by currency traders watching monitors to devalue currency by selling billions because of a one tenth change in a basis point in interest rates. I would add, that since the dollar is the reserve currency, and oil is (supposed to be) sold
    in dollars, oil futures markets are manipulating the value of the dollar.
    As for the world being infinitely better off today than in 1971, that is entirely dependent on your life view. There are certainly more creature comforts, but I am of the view that the quality of life is worse, not better.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
    , @Eryximachus
  56. Zion pummels our intellect into submission by a “multiplicity of economics theories, until the ordinary man throws his hands in the air and shouts: “who can understand all this?” and he leaves it in the hands of our experts.”
    You are better, because you explain it from our viewpoint….but wait….

    stayed tuned for the comments section, where the undead live forever.

    That is just one quote from your article telling me how stupid I am, so you despise me too?
    But I read on, after all, I can learn from my enemy, seeing as he’s so much smarter than me. So the solution to all my problems would be to firmly believe that all those problems arise from “bank credit’.
    All banking disasters are because of attempts at regulation, all crashes just happen to have the same beneficiaries, but every one was a failure of over regulation. I can change this by believing bank credit is evil. Okay then, I believe…
    The most basic commodities are still out of my price range because of rampant speculation backed by law and taxes, so……..
    I believe, brother, I believe.
    I believe you forgot what your subject matter was, and ended up insulting your audience. Maybe calling me a chatterer will make me more critical of your suggestions, even I stop reading??? Freedom fighters need friends more than they need explosives, friend.
    For your brief entertainment, I humbly offer this take on the nature of money:
    https://greenpets.co.za/index.php/en/32-paranoid-goy/economics/105-economic-fable
    When you have an idea how to get us out that loop, I shall personally erect your statue.

  57. @Hang All Text Drivers

    I almost stopped reading when he started talking about fracking being a good idea. I had to finish, professional courtesy and all, and I can report back to you: You an;’t miss not nuffin’, the boy is so wet behind the ears, he thinks he has original thoughts….

  58. utu says:
    @sarz

    “Unz Review already carries stuff by Michael Hudson, a kindred spirit. Timely pieces by Ellen Brown would be welcome.”

    Obviously writings by Hudson and Brown are preferable to the incoherent mishmash of Steve Penfield. I would say that reading Zarlenga’s book about money should be prerequisite. If one does not get what money is he should be barred form entering the discussion. This would include all goldbugs and libertarians. Publishing the incoherent mishmash of the crypto-goldbug Penfield is a disgrace. Ron Unz does not think much about the crackpottery himself

    Ron Unz: “Frankly, much of the endless ranting about the Federal Reserve both on this website and elsewhere strikes me as mere crackpottery.”
    https://www.unz.com/kbarrett/trumps-killing-of-soleimani-new-worst-mistake-in-us-history/#comment-3660876

    yet he publishes Penfield.

    • Replies: @MrFoSquare
  59. @goldhoarder

    Can we cut the faux Outrage over ‘The Fed’ and the evil ‘One Percenters’ and focus on illicit Counterfeiting and other core issues?

    So the peo…ple.

    Since we are currently again censored, and ad hominem is again what comes up… Goldhoarder, you are to the point. It is essential to the litany of the author and what he intents. He is shifting the goalposts, the classical mix of suggestively enticing the audience. The bends are there. He seeks to claim the borderline between a dour M. Hudson, and still making the case of the banking world. Many dichotomies are present. Again since we are censored on occasion, no possibility to dive deeper into the author´s slam-dunk in the world of magic dust. No integrity whatsoever. The few correct statements are self-evidenced, do not excuse the lack of context. Public fodder, not in-depth analysis.

  60. Mefobills says:
    @NumaPompilus

    That’s right. Without bills of credit, there would have been no money for the colonies to grow and prosper.

    There were many attacks by the British to induce Colonials to use gold/silver and at high usurious rates – of course.

    Another filter you can use to discern a disinfo agent, is dissembling on Continentals or Greenbacks, of which our author is guilty.

    When the early U.S. government was printing worthless Continental dollars, in Mr. Maybury’s words: “anyone who violated the legal tender laws was charged with treason and thrown in jail.

    Continentals were made worthless because the British were counterfeiting them massively, and even then continentals were resistant. Debt free money has to be taken up in taxes, and the tax system then was not codified well in law, as the Continental government was at war. Even after the war, taxing authority was argued over.

    Greenbacks were never issued in more volume than expressly permitted by law. Banker’s hated and loved greenbacks. Banker’s used them as reserves, and during seasonal needs for cash, the greenbacks would be recalled to pay for the harvests, especially in both harvest and planting (for seeds). Bankers also gambled their greenbacks in the stock markets with call loans. Call loans would be recalled during the harvest, and inevitably the stock market would collapse, and many bankers would loose their gambling position.

    So, if you hear any dissembling and leaving out of account the full story on Greenbacks or Continentals, then you know the author is a disinfo agent, and should be ignored.

    To paraphrase Thomas Payne, “let it be known that the Continental is the cornerstone of our success.”

    No continental = no U.S.

    Eat Shit disinfo agents.

    • Replies: @MrFoSquare
  61. Bro43rd says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    A more precise way he could have stated, government should only be permitted to regulate weights & measures, X grains of gold/silver = oz, instead of oz = X$. Does that help? I generally agree with you and enjoy your comments.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  62. @Eryximachus

    You start off well, then you descend into Bolshevic gibberish. I especially like how you throw out extremely important information:

    so that “the right” would not be tempted to unilaterally pull out of the global economy as did the Axis powers of WWII.

    then happily carry one decrying sovereignty of states. Where I come from, that form of dis-education is called “pissing in the pudding”, where you take the opponent’s perfectly valid counter argument, and claim it for yourself, defiling the spirit of the thought as you go.
    Who do you work for, I admire your style, even though I detest you intent.

    • Replies: @Eryximachus
  63. @Achmed E. Newman

    Thanks for the comments. My thoughts on the “gold standard” are mainly three things:

    1. I’d just call any paper note an “ounce” or “pound” etc. with 100% precious metal backing and skip the extra step of letting politicians or bankers define what is “money.” As far as value goes, I’d leave that to the markets.

    2. I think the gold “standard” creates a false sense of security that gov’t is overseeing the banking industry, when banks are still allowed fractional mischief that has led to massive inflation.

    3. Even with the gold link in the 1800s, that didn’t prevent the ~ dozen major “panics” and boom/bust cycles of credit inflation. That tells me some level of competent oversight (fraud prevention) is missing.

    In general, I’m fine with 3rd party (gov’t) oversight of fixed “weighs and measures” to establish a stable foundation for economic interaction. Arbitrary government rules, “compliance” mandates for self-incrimination, and social engineering (what we have now) is a totally different story.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  64. Bro43rd says:
    @Hang All Text Drivers

    I almost did as well but glad I didn’t, it’s worth the read but probably could have been condensed to make it readable for the masses.

  65. anon[361] • Disclaimer says:
    @Robert Dolan

    Der Judenstaat. BY Theodor Herzl [with Max Nordau]
    Vienna, February 14, 1896

    The common people have not, and indeed cannot have, any historic comprehension. They do not know that the sins of the Middle Ages are now being visited on the nations of Europe. We are what the Ghetto made us.

    We have attained pre-eminence in finance, because mediaeval conditions drove us to it. The same process is now being repeated. We are again being forced into finance, now it is the stock exchange, by being kept out of other branches of economic activity. Being on the stock exchange, we are consequently exposed afresh to contempt.

    At the same time we continue to produce an abundance of mediocre intellects who find no outlet, and this endangers our social position as much as does our increasing wealth. Educated Jews without means are now rapidly becoming Socialists.

    Hence we are certain to suffer very severely in the struggle between classes, because we stand in the most exposed position in the camps of both Socialists and capitalists.

    . . .

    Anti-Semitism increases day by day and hour by hour among the nations; indeed, it is bound to increase, because the causes of its growth continue to exist and cannot be removed.

    Its remote cause is our loss of the power of assimilation during the Middle Ages; its immediate cause is our excessive production of mediocre intellects, who cannot find an outlet downwards or upwards—that is to say, no wholesome outlet in either direction. When we sink, we become a revolutionary proletariat, the subordinate officers of all revolutionary parties; and at the same time, when we rise, there rises also our terrible power of the purse.

    https://www.gutenberg.org/files/25282/25282-h/25282-h.htm

  66. @Nugie

    Interesting to hear that. My first Facebook ban. I take that as a compliment.

    Would love to know what they find “abusive” … perhaps bankers are now a protected class.

  67. Anonymous[763] • Disclaimer says:
    @jadan

    Nice try, but fiat money becomes equivalent to stealth confiscation through inflation of the purchasing power of the wages and savings of the people and, therefore, a moral evil.

  68. Mefobills says:
    @Realist

    With no backing for a currency all money becomes fiat

    All money is fiat. Fiat means faith, and most especially faith in the law. Law and force are related.

    The entire 2000+ years of gold coin history was fiat. As soon as the coin gets the King’s stamp, it becomes a creature of the law. Clipped and debased coins circulated at face value did they not?

    Gold by weight was first used as money by the Temples. The gold by weight related to barley grains. Barley was the legal money as authorized by Temple authority. Temple priests worked with the King as king’s were god’s representatives on earth. Gold was soft and easily cut off of gold rods. Gold chunks were weighed on a balance beam scale against barley grains. Gold is still weighed in grains today. Barley weight was the money of the realm, and was noted on ledgers. Gold by weight was thus an extension of the legal “ledger” of the Temple authority.

    All money is law, and it always has been.

    The first civilizations organized around barley because people wanted to get drunk and screw. They stopped hunter/gathering because civilization and farming was more fun.

    You could also say that money = beer. So, lets please stop with the fiat nonsense.

    • Replies: @Realist
  69. Bro43rd says:

    It seems most commenters on UR are thoroughly statists. Insisting every fix is to be derived by government intervention of one sort or another. That to me is the number 1 issue to be resolved.

  70. @Steve Penfield

    You write for this site, yet are unaware that the whole place is supposedly now Faceberk-banned? Isn’t piece-specific. The granularity is at the domain level.

    You could have written a paean to Willy Gates: Banned. Support HRC2020: Banned.

  71. @goldhoarder

    If you think hoarding gold is a good thing, I don’t really have anything to say.

    “We” was simply a rhetorical device referring to Americans subject to the Federal Reserve System.

  72. @Bro43rd

    No, we just realize the absurdity of libertarianism. You can only be young to make such claims – nearly 12 years ago, it was Armageddon. Libertarians, including Ron Paul, made all kinds of predictions of the future that just ended up being wrong. Many of us made stupid decisions based on libertarian lies and take the time to point them out.

    Believing civilization is possible without a state is, quite frankly, insane.

  73. @Bro43rd

    Very true. It seems some people are rather obsessed with forcibly imposing their opinions on others.

    I often wish those folks would test market their wild ideas on a small group (better yet, themselves) before advocating full-scale rollout upon the entire nation. Blind faith in arbitrary “fiat” gov’t power is easily the most dangerous type of religious fanaticism ever invented. (Marx, Lincoln, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. are a few prime examples.)

    I’m hoping the relatively free press of the internet will chip away at that belief system… some day.

    • Agree: Bro43rd
  74. Anon[299] • Disclaimer says:

    A debt jubilee can be achieved by printing money, handing it out evenly and demanding that outstanding debts be serviced with it before anything of that money can be spend. That’s what Steve Keen is proposing.
    It would be highly inflationary but that would be evened out by rising wages from rising cash flow. The lower the debt someone has, the more he would profit, so there would be no bailing out of debtors by non-debtors. The problem would be with pension funds because they rely on fixed income generated by debt instruments. This problem would have to be taken care of by subsidizing pensions.

    The next step of reform would consist of abolishing money lending on interest. Contracts of this kind would have no legal standing anymore, credit, collateral and interest would not exist as legal concepts. Giving away money would always have to be considered an investment. Either there is a return or there isn’t. Everybody would go through life with an investment rating. The motivation for generating returns on money invested would be provided by the necessity of keeping this rating positive. Investments could be traded, so everybody would be his own little stock company. All of that would make people much more risk-averse than what they are today. It would lead to a rediscovery of the value of family because investments would be most easily obtainable from relatives.

    Electronic exchanges would allow anyone to issue money, not just the state. The state would accept only its own money for tax payments. But the competition by an unlimited number of alternative currencies would prevent the state from inflating its own money. In addition to that, standardized gold and silver coins, not necessarily issued by the state, would be legal tender, providing an additional safeguard against inflation. Any scheme akin to fractional reserve holding would be illegal just like lending money on interest. That would mean that banks would not exist anymore, so they could never become too big to fail either.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  75. @Bro43rd

    It seems most commenters on UR are thoroughly statists. Insisting every fix is to be derived by government intervention of one sort or another. That to me is the number 1 issue to be resolved.

    True the same, in the margin. Most commenters need “handles” something to hold on to, government, seems to them as a real cause-effect object.

    As an example, digital currency, as media meta data, could be run without the possibility of a “middle man” which exempts it from being manipulated to gross the divide between the surplus population and most of the middle classes, Jew middle classes included, and the elites. Still the concept is hard to grasp by most. The backing done by the consumption of energy, is when applied in a certain way, still a step further then anything as plumb gold, gold derivatives, money based on gold. As easily digital money can mean a step in the direction of complete dominance of the surplus population when issued by middle men as government and/or banksters. All that is hard to grasp for most. And understandably so. Even a bigger loon, where every-one almost is lost, “money” should be a planetary thing, responding to the same rules @ all territories, obey to the assets – liabilities of the planet, including and specially, the variables of populations. AI(big data for now) when used appropriately can come close in accounting such a scheme(apples only no apples and pears additioning). Combine the above …and no-one is still listening…

    Owned by unz.com, as the analogy of “loops” issued by the author.

  76. UK says:
    @Franz

    Love them or loathe them but Singapore, Hong Kong, New Zealand, Dubai, Israel, Taiwan, Norway, Iceland and others are governed much more responsively and competently than similar countries of greater size.

    Ireland is a weird one that should be in that mix but the EU stuff seems to be a confounding factor.

    • Agree: Franz
  77. The United States Treasury department should be the Fed and not the cabal of privately owned banks whose primary interest is only profit … why can’t it be done?

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  78. Mefobills says:
    @Really No Shit

    why can’t it be done?

    https://ellenbrown.com/2020/04/03/was-the-fed-just-nationalized/

    The FED may have been nationalized in a convoluted way.

    backed by $425 billion in collateral conveniently supplied by the US taxpayer via the Exchange Stabilization Fund. The Fed will lend to SPVs against this collateral which, when leveraged, could fund $4-5 trillion in asset purchases.

    This means that one of the SPVs (special purpose vehicles) is acting like a bank. It is hypothecating $425B in taxpayer money to 4.25B @10X using fractional reserve. The bank credit from SPV under authority of Treasury is then buying junk assets. The Treasury in effect now has its own public bank in the guise of a SPV.

    the Treasury will now be buying assets and backstopping loans through SPVs that the Treasury will own and control.

    The “asset paper” that SPV buys will land on said SPV’s ledger, and hence be under Treasury control.

    By contrast the QE operations since 2008 was entirely endogenous (within the private banking system). MBS and TBills transferred to the FED’s ledger, not Treasury.

  79. Financial Follies?
    Yes: nice alliteration there.
    What about: Money Madness; or Money Magic; or Credit Criminality?
    I’ve only had time to glance through this rather long article, and it seems to cover important basics rather well. I expect it will take the likes of me a considerable number of hours of hard intellectual work to read it with the care it deserves.
    Very few ordinary people will do that; and, sadly, only a minority of ordinary people could do that.
    I don’t know whether Mr. Penfield is aware that a long sequence of carefully argued connected facts – no matter how valid the parts and the whole – ends up effectively concealing the parts and the whole from most readers.
    If you want to bury a long and complex issue, or wash your hands of culpability for it, then a long and complex presentation is the way to go.
    How many medicos do you think have spent the time to seriously consider the official claims that ‘Vaccines are safe and effective’?
    Sadly we have been educated to read much too quickly which is very tiring and extremely ineffective.
    How many economists do you think have spent the time to seriously consider the official claims that money is a store of value?
    Medicos and economists are capable of doing so, but have been effectively blocked from doing so by being brainwashed during their training with false beliefs presented as never-to-be-questioned facts.
    Amazing, isn’t it?
    To his credit, Mr. Penfield briefly summarizes his lengthy presentation with a very brief logical sequence:
    “All bank credit is inflationary. All credit inflation involves counterfeiting. And all counterfeiting amounts to organized theft. Nothing good can come from that.”
    But even that is not brief enough, and accords too much credit to “bank credit”. What is it that bank credit inflates? It inflates the prices of goods and services. Expressed more honestly: it deflates the value of money; but that value is false.
    So let’s cut Mr. Penfield’s summary back to its base: ‘All bank credit is organized theft.’ And let us agree with Mr. Penfield: “Nothing good can come from that.”
    I sympathize with Mr. Penfield’s timidity when recommending “What we’re each left with is an individual decision to keep drifting into the abyss of manufactured credit servitude or to start rebuilding something more sustainable from the ground up (although we’d be “starting” at both an advanced state of technology and an advanced stage of dysfunction).”
    Is it sensible to consider harmful technology as advanced just because some “investors” can profit from it?
    The existing system has to cease – be brought to an end – doesn’t it?
    Then – and only then – could begin the never-ending trial-and-error process of building something sustainable.
    The profiteers/criminals would not like that.
    Whew, I need a rest before I start to read through this worthwhile article.

    • Thanks: TheTrumanShow
  80. Without QE to infinity and beyond

    ….it will not be possible to repave the road to ruin with good intentions

  81. @Bro43rd

    OK, right, I got that. Does that mean the point is gold should not be convertible to dollars or any other fiat currency? If that is Mr. Penfield’s point than he is King of the Goldbugs, while I am a mere Duke or something…

    American fiat currency WAS backed by gold for most of our history and not just the full faith and credit crap (which worked pretty good when America was the economic superpower, not so much anymore). I don’t see anything wrong with the 18th/19th/first-1/3 of 2oth century policy (subtract out a few years of the Lincoln administration reign).

    Oh, and thanks for the compliment, Bro.

  82. onebornfree says: • Website
    @Miro23

    “It’s not a problem with government per se, it’s a problem of corruption. ”

    But that was the 2nd point I had originally made. [Maybe you didn’t read that far down?] All governments are inherently, unchangeably, 100%, corrupt. To repeat:

    “….2] All Governments Are Inherently Criminal

    “Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect theft [taxes], and counterfeiting [central bank monopolies], all governments are essentially, at their very cores, 100% corrupt criminal scams which cannot be “reformed”or “improved”,simply because of their innate criminal nature.” onebornfree

    “Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure” Robert LeFevere”

    Regards, onebornfree

  83. @utu

    One almost gets the impression that Penfield is a pen name that Unz uses to project his own ideas about money. After all, he writes next to nothing on the subject under his own name. And of course we see his trademark disdain for the commenters.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @Amerimutt Golems
  84. @Steve Penfield

    OK, thank you for the reply, Mr. Penfield. I didn’t see this before I wrote back to Bro43rd.

    I’m fine with your point (1).

    I guess the fractional mischief (2) is another story. The problem is that government involvement in Big Banking obscures any kind of view from the customers of what their bank is up to. It’s too complicated (for me too!) Were the customers to simply see that “hey, they are lending out 10X the (real) money they’ve got in that vault” then they could chose to do business elsewhere.

    On 3, no it didn’t, but if you wanted to put your money into some boom, and it went bust, at least that was your own failing. For the fiscally conservative among us, and that used to mean most Americans, so what? Inflation was almost nil for 150 years or so. You saved your money in gold, and it was still there later for you or your children… barring an FDR – nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition an FDR!

  85. @Steve Penfield

    Nah, don’t take it personally, whether rightfully proud or not. That’s for the whole unz site. It doesn’t affect someone like me who doesn’t sign up for crap like facebook. It’s not that hard to type in a url, especially one made of 7 characters, and then find the article in question.

  86. Mefobills says:
    @Curmudgeon

    Just what does sufficiently flexible mean. The issue was there would be claims for exchange that could not be paid. I am not saying the gold standard was good or bad. Yes, it was inferior to Bancor, but superior to the notional value of a commodified currency we have today,

    The bancor was a method for accounting global trade outside of a nations borders. At Bretton Woods, the GOLD TRADING STANDARD was adopted instead.

    Please do not say “gold standard.” That means something else. There are many different gold standards. For example, an internal gold standard has bank credit riding on top of gold in a 10:1 ratio.

    An external gold trading standard only marks goods flow external to a trading nation. The trading gold standard was operative from Bretton Woods up until Nixon’s closing of the gold window in 71. If a trading nation is losing gold due to imbalanced trade, then that signals for a national exchange rate adjustment.

    Think of it like your brain/spinal system vs blood system. They are two different circulatory paths.

    A trading gold standard OR a bancor system only operate relative to goods flow external to a nation’s borders. The trading gold standard and the bancor system both informed exchange rates, to then bring trade into balance.

    Within a nation and outside of a nation are to be two different circulation paths. This iron rule of economics is ignored of course, as today we have dollar as reserve, SDR’s and floating exchange rates. Money types are all jumbled together rather than isolated to their circulation paths.

    Sufficiently flexible only applies to “inside a nation” where the general money supply has to flex to the S shaped curve of most economies. Outside of a nation, a trading gold standard or a bancor doesn’t have flexible needs. If international trade is fully balanced, there is no gold or bancor flow.

    • Replies: @Curmudgeon
  87. @Mefobills

    Continentals were made worthless because the British were counterfeiting them massively,

    And at roughly the same time the (((British))) were counterfeiting massive amounts of French assignats for the purpose of destroying the French economy and overthrowing the monarchy. If I remember correctly, this was covered in Zarlenga’s The Lost Science of Money.

    • Thanks: Mefobills
  88. jsigur says:
    @Eryximachus

    They give the appearance of being highly regulated but all the important decicions are in their own hands

  89. @Franz

    Yes. But not 50 little countries. Not good to have many of them land-locked. My suggestion for the continent would be 4 or 5 bundles of the original states, all with a port on the Atlantic or the Pacific.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Franz
  90. onebornfree says: • Website
    @Bro43rd

    “It seems most commenters on UR are thoroughly statists. Insisting every fix is to be derived by government intervention of one sort or another.”

    Very true. However, in their “defense” I’d say that the infatuation with government solutions to problems it/they mostly caused in the first place [by its/their direct interference in the market process], is [unfortunately] a worldwide international disease of the mind that has been around for a long, long time [ eg communism, socialism, fascism etc.].

    And you have to give all these foaming at the mouth, government worshiping statists “credit” for their unfailing ability to completely ignore all of the “in yer face” evidence that government “solutions” never work [ except to further enrich/empower governments and their various sycophants, of course].

    “If one rejects laissez faire on account of mans fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.”Ludwig von Mises

    ” The worship of the state is the worship of force. There is no more dangerous menace to civilization than a government of incompetent, corrupt, or vile men. The worst evils which mankind ever had to endure were inflicted by bad governments. The state can be and has often been in the course of history the main source of mischief and disaster.”~ Ludwig von Mises,

    “Everything government touches turns to crap” Ringo Starr

    “The kind of man who wants the government to adopt and enforce his ideas is always the kind of man whose ideas are idiotic” H.L.Mencken

    “Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure” Robert LeFevere

    Regards, onebornfree

    • Replies: @NumaPompilus
  91. anon[191] • Disclaimer says:

    “An organized debt forgiveness program could also delineate clear boundaries between cancelling fiat credit schemes and (say) giving freeloaders an excuse to trespass “rent free” on an owner’s property. America’s struggles during the 1930s saw a similar debacle from a dithering executive who chose to appease unionized factory squatters instead of protecting property rights—as his own Vice President, John Garner, had privately urged him.”

    This brings up 3 thorny questions: What is a freeloader? What are protecting property rights? Why do we accord the “corporation” the same rights as an individual?

    Is a “freeloader” a law abiding citizen who has been pushed to the wall by lack of income (though no fault of his own, such as the depression of the 30’s or the current Covid crisis) who happens to be “squatting” on property “owned” by individuals or corporations who aren’t making the profits they expect from said property?

    What are protecting property rights? Is this the government enforcing the “right” of the “property owner” to keep people from walking across his land so he can stand up and say, “This is mine!” or something more concrete such as restricting access to said property to reduce financial liability to the property owner if a trespasser is injured on said property or to prevent another individual or company from making profits from land or other property that they don’t have legal access to. The first is not legitimate, the second and third are.

    The enshrining in law equalizing the rights of the corporation and equating them with the rights of the individual is crazy if one thinks it through. We all are familiar with basic human rights as written into law in the US Constitution and Bill of Rights and why it’s there, but why should an abstract legal entity such as a “corporation” have its “rights” equal or superior to the rights of an individual? The corporation is a legal framework set up to represent the combined investments of the shareholders and to isolate them from any legal liability. Why should an abstract entity that’s just an investment vehicle be treated legally as important as an individual or even higher? There’s something wrong here? Should your bank account have the same rights as your neighbor?

    • Replies: @Ann Nonny Mouse
  92. @onebornfree

    So, I guess the Founding Fathers were mentally ill, right?
    People here are merely advocating their propositions, and if you don’t know that, well, go read a book then, or return to facebook, boomer.

    Benjamin Franklin even wrote a treatise in defense of Fiat, exposed how Metalism was destroying America and fought a war to put this country on this path.

    You dishonor him.

    • Agree: Mefobills
  93. Anonymous[198] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ann Nonny Mouse

    My suggestion for the continent would be 4 or 5 bundles of the original states, all with a port on the Atlantic or the Pacific.

    See:
    http://www.colinwoodard.com/americannations.html
    https://colinwoodard.blogspot.com/2012/04/presenting-slighty-revised-american.html

    for cleavage lines. New countries would be based on the ethnic regions shown. My guess is that the major cities will not be have much influence in the new fragmented countries, as by that time they will be nearly uninhabitable thanks to the decentralization precipitated by COVID-19.

  94. utu says:
    @MrFoSquare

    “One almost gets the impression that Penfield is a pen name that Unz uses ” – Nonsense. Penfield can’t write one paragraph w/o contradicting himself twice. I wish Ron Unz took his usual two week reading crash course to master the subject and wrote American Pravda article about monetary systems and money creation. I am pretty sure it would be well organized article with terminology precisely defined separating the wheat from the chaff.

    • Replies: @MrFoSquare
  95. jadan says:
    @sarz

    As an Ellen Brown fan, I would welcome articles from her also, but she has made a mistake in representing the Bank of North Dakota as a “public bank”, and to compound this error she is a consistent Fed apologist. This is not to say that she’s a Fed booster, but when Bernanke dropped the fed funds rate to near zero, she began to see the Fed potential to fulfill the role of a public bank in expanding the money supply. She has never supported any alternative to the Fed, such as the American Monetary Act, or the 2011 NEED Act (HR2990) proposed by Dennis Kucinich, based on the AMA proposal. She doesn’t want to be too radical in confronting the powers that be, apparently. She talks the talk but does not walk the walk. Maybe s she doesn’t want to become irrelevant like Kucinich? I am seriously disappointed in her refusal to challenge a system that is clearly collapsing before our eyes. Don’t know how kindred a spirit she is with Michael Hudson. Her appeal to me comes from her ability to translate financial gibberish into plain English. She has also explained the difference between the Chinese and Japanese banking system, and the US system because both these systems function to an extent like public banks. She has alot to learn from Hudson. Brown is politically wishy washy.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
    , @sarz
  96. jadan says:
    @Realist

    Sorry for you, Realist. Without a government you are just fodder for the oligarchs. Better get yourself some guns, if you don’t already have them, and put your savings in cryptocurrencies because if you aren’t working for democracy you’ll be swearing fealty to some local warlord.

    • Disagree: schnellandine
    • Replies: @Realist
  97. @anon

    “A corporation … legally as important as an individual or even higher?”

    A corporation is an individual, and it is an immortal individual, which naturally makes it more important than us mortals.

  98. Mefobills says:
    @jadan

    She has never supported any alternative to the Fed, such as the American Monetary Act, or the 2011 NEED Act (HR2990) proposed by Dennis Kucinich, based on the AMA proposal.

    You are correct of course. Gyro banking has no counter party risk, and hence dominoes of “credit” contagion cannot occur. Gryo is anti-fragile.

    Brown is banging her drum. The problem with HR2990 is a stupid and/or paid off congress. I’m going to go with stupid and paid off congress critters. The 17’th amendment did a hell of a job on our country.

    It is a remote possibility that citizens of a State would band together to form a state bank, maybe by referendum. At least there would be hypothecation power at the state level, and said state would be able to respond to emergencies with new loans.

    It is a question of which glimmer of hope is stronger. As for now, our testicles are in a vice.

  99. Mefobills says:
    @Anon

    A debt jubilee can be achieved by printing money, handing it out evenly and demanding that outstanding debts be serviced with it before anything of that money can be spend. That’s what Steve Keen is proposing.
    It would be highly inflationary but that would be evened out by rising wages from rising cash flow.

    The circular flow is diverted now to pay debt servicing. This servicing creates a finance plutocracy. Finance plutocracy is an overhead cost that does nothing but take.

    By lowering private debt levels, then Say’s law begins to work, and laboring people buy goods and services from each other. Goods and Services production goes up and prices go down. Why down? Because prices are too high now in order to grab money to pay debt service.

    In other words, efficiency goes up. How do you think China can make things so cheap? Their money supply has less private debt loading down their citizens.

    IMHO Keen type jubilee would not be highly inflationary. Supply of goods and services would ramp up to meet the needs of money=demand as people become unshackled from debt slavery. Also, local economy would be improved as “not diverted to pay debt” money would become available to circulate locally.

    It would be a good idea to try the Jubilee and see what happens anyway. In the end, creditors who are asking for too much will be paid off.

    https://www.statista.com/chart/19955/household-debt-balance-in-the-united-states/

  100. infinite credit is the fiat confetti blown into the financial bouncy castle

    which looks real enough till it comes apart at the seams or the blower fails

  101. Mefobills says:

    infinite credit is the fiat confetti blown into the financial bouncy castle

    To update my comment in 99 and answer potemkin. Any jubiliee “credit” that goes on to pay down mortgage debt, or debts related to bank creation…. disappears.

    A positive meets a negative, and they cancel out into nothing. The debt instrument and the jubilee money disappear at the same time. This action is not general demand leading to inflation.

    The infinite credit fiat confetti never blows into the bouncy castle. Instead what happens is the bouncy castle is made healthy as the “leaks” in the structure are no longer leaking to pay finance oligarchy.

    If you do make infinite credit, say in a housing bubble, it pushed housing prices. So, now new families cannot form to have children as they are priced out of the market. Also, with debts loading down the economy, labor value is diverted to pay said private debts. New families also have to pay high prices to live.

  102. sarz says:
    @jadan

    It’s just silly to see Ellen Brown as wishy-washy. Her work to set up public banks in many states is as focused as can be. She doesn’t break her stride over irrelevant matters, like which party is in power. I have for long thought of her as America’s leading revolutionary.

  103. “About money creation: it’s obvious it should be created debt-free by the government, . . . ”

    It is not ‘obvious’ to prof. R. A. Werner?

    “6. Bank credit creation for transactions that are part of GDP has been identified as the main
    determinant of nominal GDP growth.24 Hence an increase in bank credit is required to boost
    nominal GDP. By borrowing from banks, governments can pump-prime bank credit creation.
    This boosts nominal GDP growth and hence domestic demand, resulting in greater employment,
    lower expenditure on unemployment benefits, greater tax revenues and hence lower deficits
    and also larger GDP, lowering the deficit/GDP and debt/GDP ratios by lowering the numerator
    and increasing the denominator.”
    And
    “The deficit to GDP ratio will approach zero, as credit creation for GDP transactions boosts the denominator and increased tax revenues and reduced government expenditure reduce the deficit. In contrast to the unsustainable (explosive) deficit situation with bond issuance for government funding in case A, the new policy of not issuing bonds and borrowing from banks is sustainable and delivers the desired policy outcomes.”
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261560614001132

    Unless debt-free money created by the government can be shown to be more advantageous?

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  104. ‘We’ may not wish to discuss the ‘power of the plutocracy’, but, in the US, paid lobbyists do appear to exercise influence?
    “Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism. “
    https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S1537592714001595

    And in the UK.
    “The truth about lobbying: 10 ways big business controls government”
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/12/lobbying-10-ways-corprations-influence-government
    Of course, there are ‘defenders’?
    “This paper argues that high-handed moralizing about lobbying misses the point: Lobbyists are not inherently corrupting, nor does their primary influence stem from some devilish power to automatically compel legislative outcomes through campaign contributions and/or personal connections, as is commonly believed. Rather, their influence comes from their ability to become an essential part of the policymaking process by flooding understaffed, under-experienced, and overworked congressional offices with enough information and expertise to help shape their thinking.”
    https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/06_lobbying_drutman.pdf

  105. Franz says:
    @Ann Nonny Mouse

    Agree with the basic point, on the other hand, check with Europe:

    Particularly the Czech Republic. Slovakia, Hungary, and Austria. All landlocked and doing well.

    Hungary actually corresponds to the American Plains & west quite well: They even had a “wild wild East” period when their eastern plains were a lot like the US in the glory days of Dodge City and the Tombstone Epitaph.

    The plains and lake states could make reciprocal trade agreements — one at a time and all with an expiration date — for continuance of business. Fact is, only the megapolis areas would be at serious risk, but from what I can make out they’re in for some depopulation real soon anyway. Hope not too ugly, but I see no reason for optimism.

    This would be a fine goad to re-industrialize on a human scale. That should make up for any amount of pain. Just cutting out foreign trade would create fine employment opportunities for the next three generations.

    • Replies: @alan kerns
  106. Realist says:
    @jadan

    Without a government you are just fodder for the oligarchs.

    A couple points here…I never said anything about not having a government, my disapproval is of the current US government. Second oligarchs are rulers in an oligarchy which is a form of government…that makes your statement nonsense.

    Better get yourself some guns, if you don’t already have them, and put your savings in cryptocurrencies because if you aren’t working for democracy you’ll be swearing fealty to some local warlord.

    I do have guns. Cryptocurrency is a Ponzi scheme. The US government is not a democracy…it is a Deep State in the form of an oligarchy. The oligarchy of the Deep State was given a huge boost by the following 1976 action.
    The SCOTUS passed down egregious decisions that abridge the First Amendment and show contempt for the concept of a representative democracy. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1976 and exacerbated by continuing stupid SCOTUS decisions First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission.
    These decisions have codified that money is free speech thereby giving entities of wealth and power almost total influence in elections.
    The Deep State doesn’t care about the unimportant internecine squabbles of the two parties as long as their important issues are advanced (wealth and power). As a matter of fact it strengthens the false perception that there is a choice when voting.

  107. Nugie says:

    I used the Chrome extension “Send to Kindle” for this article and when it appeared there the author attributed to it is Michael Hudson. Must be some sort of glitch?

  108. @MrFoSquare

    One almost gets the impression that Penfield is a pen name that Unz uses to project his own ideas about money. After all, he writes next to nothing on the subject under his own name. And of course we see his trademark disdain for the commenters.

    The author almost certainly didn’t study the subject matter in a classroom post high school. This excessively long and disjointed article is proof, hence circumlocution and disinformation charges in the comments. It is also ideological in form (normative economics).

    • Replies: @MrFoSquare
  109. Currency is the FLOW of Money in capital or exchanged goods. When “governments” restrict monetary bank value based on available funds or exchange rates (usury), consumer exchange tied to this benchmark loses value through artificial inflation.

    The only way to eliminate fiat money is to base exchange value on the measured weight of non-counterfeit metal coinage. All weighted denominations would be transferable in gold, silver, nickel, and copper with no exceptions. There should be no private company benchmark valuations allowed.

    If you want to see what the private, undemocratic European Central Bank is doing to the EU economy, watch Princes of the Yen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5Ac7ap_MAY

    We don’t need economists. We need accountants that know how to count, and are held accountable.

    • Replies: @james charles
  110. @Paul Vonharnish

    “83:02 The ECB has a lot to learn from its past mistakes,

    [MORE]

    83:07 because I don’t think it really watched credit creation carefully enough.
    83:11 In Spain, Ireland, we had massive credit expansion
    83:16 under the watch of the ECB,
    83:18 interest rates of course are the same in the Eurozone,
    83:22 but the quantity of credit cycle is very different.
    83:25 There’s one interest rate for the whole euro area,
    83:28 but in 2002 the ECB told the Bundesbank
    83:30 to reduce its credit creation by the biggest amount in its history
    83:34 and told the Irish central bank to print money
    83:37 as if there was no tomorrow.
    83:38 What is going to happen?
    83:39 Same interest rate. Is it the same growth? No.
    83:42 Recession in Germany, boom in Ireland.
    83:44 Which variable tells you that? Credit creation.
    83:50 From 2004, under the ECB’s watch,
    83:54 bank credit growth in Ireland, Greece, Portugal and Spain
    83:58 increased by over 20% per annum
    84:01 and property prices sky-rocketed.
    84:05 When bank credit fell, property prices collapsed,
    84:09 developers went bankrupt,
    84:11 and the banking systems of Ireland, Portugal,
    84:14 Spain and Greece became insolvent.
    84:19 The ECB could have prevented these bubbles,
    84:22 just as it could have ended the ensuing banking and economic crises.
    84:27 But it refused to do so
    84:29 until major political concessions had been made,
    84:32 such as the transfer of fiscal and budgeting powers
    84:35 from each sovereign state to the European Union.
    84:42 In both Spain and Greece
    84:43 youth unemployment has been pushed up to 50%,
    84:47 forcing many youths to seek employment abroad.
    84:51 Greek doctors, for whose education Greek taxpayers have paid,
    84:55 now work in Germany.
    85:00 The deliberations of the ECB’s decision-making bodies are secret.
    85:05 The mere attempt at influencing the ECB,
    85:08 for instance through democratic debate and discussion,
    85:11 is forbidden according to the Maastricht Treaty.
    85:17 The ECB is an international organisation
    85:20 that is above and outside the laws and jurisdictions
    85:23 of any individual nation.
    85:27 Its senior staff carry diplomatic passports
    85:30 and the files and documents inside the European Central Bank
    85:34 cannot be searched or impounded
    85:36 by any police force or public prosecutor.
    85:43 The ECB is well known among economists
    85:46 as one of the world’s most powerful and least transparent central banks,
    85:52 yet its former president, Jean-Claude Trichet,
    85:56 dealt with this problem
    85:57 by merely asserting that there was no problem: ”

  111. @Franz

    You are right to imply that current industrialization and government of nations is NOT on a scale that is caring for ordinary people who are forced to live our entire lives in an inhuman/inhumane way.
    I would be interested in reading your [or others’] writings on ‘re-industrializing on a human scale’.
    Please point the way.
    Thanks

  112. Perhaps the most important part of Mr. Penfield’s presentation comes under the heading: “Point of Clarity: Rejecting the ‘All or Nothing’ Canard”.
    What on earth does this highly condensed and abstract aphorism mean?
    Let’s unpack it.
    Mr. Penfield proceeded to begin to do so: “A major point of confusion leading to enormous misapplication of “monetary policy” is the false option of total federal control versus state/local government monitoring. Thanks to so much political noise from professional pundits and leashed academics, these options are either blurred together or completely obscured with the foolish choice of Big Government or No Government at all.”
    Still needs further unpacking.
    1. “Confusion” is very important to both the ‘controllers’ and the ‘controlled’. The ‘controllers’ need the ‘controlled’ to be perpetually confused about what money actually is, and the role it plays in the way we live our lives – from birth to death.
    (a) Did you understand that? The money ‘controllers’ need their herds of ordinary people to NOT understand the role that money plays in the way we live our lives. What is that role? That question needs to be answered and understood by ordinary people who would like to live a worthwhile life well. Would you like to live a worthwhile life well? We need to return to answering that vital question. But we also need to continue unpacking Mr. Penfield’s condensed message.
    2. Mr. Penfield implies that all people have been seduced into believing that money must be under total centralized [“federal” he wrote] power [“control” he wrote]; and that local (the place where ordinary people actually live our lives) [“state/local government” he wrote] should have no say.
    Sadly, Mr. Penfield did not proceed further in unpacking and clarification on this point, but displayed his acceptance of another crucial canard [i.e. false belief] that money stores value. He quotes another would-be monetary reformer, President James Garfield: “The chief duty of the National Government in connection with the currency of the country is to coin money and declare its value.”
    Presumably the ‘controllers’ had Garfield assassinated because of his apparent intention to loyally serve the ‘controlled’ rather than the ‘controllers’. Natural selection? [shudder!] Horribly grim, isn’t it?
    I think it better to end this response here – keep the doses short – and continue with short doses.

  113. Realist says:
    @Mefobills

    The problem with the replies from jadan and you are they consist of rambling gibberish…a circumlocutory screed.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  114. Agent76 says:

    May 24, 2020 Welcome to our New Normal

    Social Distancing Crowns, Bumper Cars and Pac-Man Eating Masks

  115. @utu

    Actually, I don’t believe Unz authored this article. I couldn’t resist the wordplay on the name Penfield. The length of the article together with the gratuitous remark about the commentariat led me to conjecture that, hey, just maybe there was a small possibility that he authored the article. It seemed like a tantalising and whimsical thought at the time. But I agree that there are too many lapses in reasoning for Ron to have written this article. It is peculiar, though, that he writes so little on such an overwhelmingly important subject as Money.

  116. Mefobills says:
    @Realist

    The problem with the replies from jadan and you are they consist of rambling gibberish…a circumlocutory screed.

    You just received known monetary history confirmed by a team of Harvard researchers including linguists, anthropologists and economists.

    It is up to you to disabuse yourself of false ideology. Generally, if people are weak minded, they lash out with ad-hominems, like “gibberish and screeds.”

    The steps are denial, then grief, then acceptance. You are in the denial stage, and it is easier to plug your ears and shake your head and make pretend you didn’t hear it. Take the blue pill, and go back to sleep.

    So, rather than making pretend, where exactly am I wrong? Use facts instead of emotion.

    You are a realist… right?

    • Replies: @Realist
  117. Mefobills says:
    @james charles

    Unless debt-free money created by the government can be shown to be more advantageous?

    Yes… it is more advantageous, and it has been shown.

    Dr. Werner is a great economist, but he pushes a private banking model, especially the German model. German sparkassen banks are public banks so there is some degree of legal control as well, so it is a leap to say that private banks will behave, when history tells us otherwise.

    Other people groups are not Germans. German’s tend to be law abiding when nobody is looking. Germans are a high trust people group.

    Werner is suggesting that hypothecations at the private bank level can be made to work providing that they only go toward GDP.

    New debts only go toward GDP and not certain types of speculative activity.

    If Werner is reading this, study the Canadian model 1938-1974. This is a case of debt free money injected into Canadian economy by Bank of Canada, a crown state bank. The State Bank also issued new credit in the form of loans into the commons to boost GDP productivity.

    The debt free money then went on to pay wages, and those wages then collected into the Trusts. The Trusts were Giro banking and stored debt free money, which in turn was loaned out to housing. This means that average savers were allowed to become capitalists and join in economic growth with low risk.

    Further down in Canadian system was private banks that were limited in hypothecation power by the State bank – something like what Werner advocates. They were “jawboned” by the BOC to stay within the lines.

    In other words, the Canadian debt-free model has already run. This experiment was a major continental economy over a significant period of time, so there is no debate. The data is in, it is just ignored.

    https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/the-bank-of-canada-should-be-reinstated-to-its-original-mandated-purposes

  118. Realist says:
    @Mefobills

    You just received known monetary history confirmed by a team of Harvard researchers including linguists, anthropologists and economists.

    Quoting authorities is not impressive. I can come up with authorities holding diametric views.

    It is up to you to disabuse yourself of false ideology. Generally, if people are weak minded, they lash out with ad-hominems, like “gibberish and screeds.”

    I was explaining my opinion of your response to my realistic…succinct comment #106. An ad hominem attack is personal…as in you are stupid…not what you wrote is stupid.

    The steps are denial, then grief, then acceptance. You are in the denial stage, and it is easier to plug your ears and shake your head and make pretend you didn’t hear it. Take the blue pill, and go back to sleep.

    More vacuous gibberish. Unless you have something of value to add…stop replying.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
    , @onebornfree
  119. Mefobills says:
    @Realist

    The actual history of gold coin era and what happened prior to that, in the ancient near east is now known. Monetary history is inconvenient for some people because it punctures their precious shibboleths.

    The science is known, and some people haven’t gotten the memo apparently. Lolbertarians, neo-liberals, and Jews are especially resistant as they cling to their “precious.”

    The Harvard compendium is now becoming available by Hudson, especially in “and forgive them their debt.”

    • Replies: @Realist
  120. Today, what is needed in America, is our very own Adolph Hitler. Say what you will about the man; everything addressed in this article is exactly what mean Mr. Moustache was fighting for.

  121. Truth3 says:

    We deserve Money that has INTRINSIC value.

    Coined Metal.

    We deserve Money that is difficult to COUNTERFEIT.

    Coined Metal.

    We deserve Money that is nearly INDESTRUCTIBLE.

    Coined Metal.

    We deserve Money that the JEWS cannot create out of thin air.

    Coined Metal.

    We deserve Money that the JEWS cannot create infinite SCAMS with.

    Coined Metal.

    We deserve Money that has lasting value NO MATTER THE RULERS.

    Coined Metal.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
    , @schnellandine
  122. Mefobills says:
    @Truth3

    We deserve Money that has lasting value NO MATTER THE RULERS.
    ___________________

    Impossible.

    During the gold coin era, Kings would demonetize existing gold coins, melt them down, and then re-issue.

    This forced gold coins out of hiding, as gold is depressionary.

    Pretending that there is no such thing as hierarchy in life and civilization, is wishful thinking and for little girls.

    When King Edward kicked the Jews out of England, they were allowed to take their metal money with them, so it could be melted and re-monetized elsewhere, to then run their scams on another country.

    Sorry, money’s true nature is law. Suck it up. Gravity also makes you fall down and bump your head.

    If ruling hierarchy is malformed and full of psychopaths, that is a separate problem.

    • Replies: @Truth3
    , @HallParvey
  123. onebornfree says: • Website
    @Realist

    “More vacuous gibberish.”

    I’m afraid that that’s all he/she has got. He/she is just another pontificating, pseudo-intellectual, know-nothing/know-it-all, long-winded windbag, as are all socialists/marxists and associated. It goes with the territory, I’m afraid.

    And so it goes….

    Regards, onebornfree

    • Agree: Realist
    • Replies: @Mefobills
  124. @Truth3

    In direction I agree with you, but not specifics.

    Men don’t deserve what they won’t demand. It’s to be handed to them? No, they got what they deserve.

    Re metal money, it isn’t necessarily the inexorable anchor oft portrayed. As a scarce commodity it’s subject to large value variance from mine discovery, etc., thus not an ideal store of wealth. There’s potential for a given metal to be wiped out by tech advances in synthesis which create surprise abundance.

    I love precious metals, and would be happy to see them and cryptocurrency (worm can alert) wipe out fiat money, but none is ideal.

    As I think you’ve noted elsewhere, US paper money is illegal. Also, though rarely discussed, federal legal tender of any kind is illegal as well.

    • Replies: @Truth3
  125. Mefobills says:
    @onebornfree

    I always include real historical data.

    You then call it vacuous and add nothing. Projection is for weak girly men. What are the facts? Did the King’s melt down gold coins or not?

    If you object to this sort of real history, then you are an ideologue and incapable of rational thought.

    That is why I call you one-born free-dumb. Another lolbertarian that cannot adjust his false worldview to bring it into alignment with reality.

    Also, all money is fiat. Get with program.

    • Replies: @Realist
  126. I love precious metals, and would be happy to see them and cryptocurrency (worm can alert) wipe out fiat money, but none is ideal.

    Perhaps a combination of the two would be nice. The PMs are a great store of wealth. Crypto is much better for making transactions, though (don’t know about all types) they sure aren’t anonymous if that’s what someone may want.

    On crypto, my worry, because I am NOT some brilliant mathematician, whether the code that right now makes the money take more and more calculations to create each coin, could have a defect. I.e, can one work out some math that gets around this limit, a limit which is part of the essence of how the stuff can be money. Were I that brilliant mathematician, I would not publish my finding on this for quite a while, if ever!

    How are peons like us gonna ever know? (I’m making a big leap here assuming nobody in this thread is a brilliant mathematician – Ron Unz may disabuse me of this notion, but he’s not rich enough to have cracked the bitcoin!) Regarding gold then, even if there is some nuclear process that will result in gold that’s not known right now, we all figure it’d take a lot of damn capital to do anything.

    How about pulling it off an asteroid? Peak Stupidity has an article that speculates that once the accurate cost of a serious mission to get the stuff (not easy at all!), then the price on Earth would pretty much go down to a price that would make the mission a wash. See Gold found on an asteroid? Should I buy, sell, or hold?

  127. We don’t need a 10,000 word dissertation about monetary reform. Money, or better said, the annual GDP, is innately tied to the gross value of the products produced by the labor force in 1 year. Since we allowed Wall Street to ship major producers overseas to countries where labor is cheap, we have little to base our GDP on. Money is labor, labor has a value. How do we get back to reality?
    As we creep closer to a digital economy we creep closer to slavery. To avoid this we need a total makeover of society, and this means an end to fractional banking, and this system of government. We are currently governed by organized criminals. What do we do about this when the criminals own the police, and the military?

    • Replies: @Eryximachus
  128. Truth3 says:
    @Mefobills

    You being a total asshole rules out any argument you make.

    I’m not wasting any logic on assholes.

    Be gone, asshole.

    • Disagree: TheTrumanShow, james charles
  129. Truth3 says:
    @schnellandine

    Well, one day you might figure it out. Until then I don’t give a damn that you don’t get it.

    Meanwhile, Truth marches inexorably toward final victory.

    • Replies: @schnellandine
  130. Realist says:
    @Mefobills

    The science is known, and some people haven’t gotten the memo apparently.

    What science would that be??? Linguistics, anthropology and economics are not science.

  131. Realist says:
    @Mefobills

    Also, all money is fiat. Get with program.

    Gold is money…gold is not fiat…therefore you have posted more illogic gibberish.

  132. @Miro23

    Good points. Nice photo of the South Sea night singer. Thanks

  133. @NumaPompilus

    This could have been written by AOC’s little sister.

  134. @Mefobills

    The notion of “debt-free money created by the government” seems pretty fantastic, notwithstanding all the academic support by people inclined to favor “public” everything. Citing extremely limited information about Canada is hardly proof that “it has been shown.”

    There seems to be a bias among some (Ellen Brown, et al) that “profit” is morally “wrong” so anything controlled by the government and treated as tax-favored “non-profit” must be good. This seems a lot like circular logic. Not to mention the arrogant stance of “I’m special, I deserve special treatment.” I don’t understand why some people are so keen on limiting other people’s choices to only ONE type of fiat money from ONE government agency.

    However, I’d be interested in getting some more condensed facts on how that Canadian model worked. Better yet, I’d like to see a critical analysis from someone who doesn’t LOVE government control as the automatic solution to everything. Not sure if that description fits you, but it seems to fit many supporters of “public banking.”

    Thanks for a few decent posts… but not the condescending snark. I get it. You’ve read lots of books on economic theory. Have you ever worked in the private sector actually “serving” someone you didn’t control? Serious question. Cheers

    • Replies: @james charles
  135. @Steve Penfield

    Why ‘some people’ may be keen on limiting ‘ other people’s choices’ . . . ?

    Because of the incompetence of the banking sector and the subsequent results?

    “As Axel Weber remarked, afterwards:
    I asked the typical macro question: who are the twenty biggest suppliers of securitization products, and who are the twenty biggest buyers. I got a paper, and they were both the same set of institutions. . . . The industry was not aware at the time that while its treasury department was reporting that it bought all these products its credit department was reporting that it had sold off all the risk because they had securitized them . . . “
    http://www.lse.ac.uk/lse-player?id=1856

    “The root problem of 2008 was a failure to recognize that the highly leveraged money center banks had used derivatives not to distribute subprime mortgage risk to the broad risk bearing capacity of the market as a whole but, rather, to concentrate it in themselves.”
    https://equitablegrowth.org/misdiagnosis-of-2008-and-the-fed-inflation-targeting-was-not-the-problem-an-unwillingness-to-vaporize-asset-values-was-not-the-problem/

  136. Aside from a few curious historical tidbits a blathering essay of condescending platitudes. I’m glad I skipped to the (Non) “conclusion.”

  137. onebornfree says: • Website

    “I don’t understand why some people are so keen on limiting other people’s choices to only ONE type of fiat money from ONE government agency.”

    It’s called a control freak psychology/mentality. What’s interesting about that psychology [although ultimately boring], is the fact that instead of ever acknowledging the abject failure of _all_ control freak “solutions” [i.e. government enforced at-the-point-of-a-gun “solutions”], for _anything_, let alone the control-freaks so-called “solutions” applied to money and banking and related, the control freak consistently denies/remains blind to those abject and catastrophic failures – “failures” that, as you presumably well know already, are merely the market’s natural corrective response as it continually self- corrects for previously enforced, control-freak “solutions”, via inflation, deflation, devaluation etc. etc.].

    Instead of ever admitting failure, as the market inevitably, inexorably self-corrects to offset the attempted impositions on its natural order via the control-freaks and their latest , new -fangled centralized “solution for everyone”, the meddling control freaks unfailingly double down and demand even _more_ government “solutions” to the very problems now caused by the previous government mandated control-freak “solutions” .

    At it’s root, I’m afraid that it’s a type of [very common, I’m afraid]mental illness, a denial of reality.

    See: “Why Government Doesn’t Work”: https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Why_Government_Doesn%27t_Work

    Despite the fact that control freaks invariably are unable to run their own lives, they insist that they know the answer to everyone elses problems, to “therefor” be enforced at the point of a gun, via their [imagined] buddy, the government. And they remain completely ignorant of natural market processes, what they are, what they do, how they operate etc., and therefor remain forever in denial of those natural processes, and, [therefor] continually fight to attempt to overcome what can never be overcome [ because in the end, the market _always_ wins, praise the lord! 🙂 ].

    “I’d like to see a critical analysis from someone who doesn’t LOVE government control as the automatic solution to everything. Not sure if that description fits you”

    You are wasting your time, it doesn’t fit him/her/it.

    Regards, onebornfree

  138. Emslander says:

    After working my way through your endless explication and reconstruction of red herrings being chopped to bits and straw men burned to dust, I found about 15 percent of the essay to have some actual merit. You could have just posited the last paragraph and then gone on to justify it.

    Where this essay and many others are missing the boat, however, is the apparent futility since about 2007 of the international struggle of central banks and progressive governments to successfully create the inflation they seek. This last attempt, covered cleverly by a bad flu epidemic and fueled with 6 to 10 Trillion dollars of counterfeit money, may succeed only in re-inflating stock prices, so that the cognoscenti can make a quick buck or two. It isn’t raising hosing prices, which is its real goal.

    What I’d like to see is a study of what happens next, when the market collapses again, housing prices weaken and government defaults begin to take place. I’m guessing that the most devastating destruction of asset prices in history will occur and you’d better be covering your own carriages with some kind of real money. Bank debt does have a multiplier effect, but defaults have the effect of decimating the money supply by equal multiples.

  139. An organized debt forgiveness program could also delineate clear boundaries between cancelling fiat credit schemes and (say) giving freeloaders an excuse to trespass “rent free” on an owner’s property.

    This guy hates the bankers, yet doesn’t recognise that landlords are running exactly the same scam.

  140. @paranoid goy

    I am describing the world as it is, particularly as edited by Henry Kissinger in the book _Prospect for America: The Rockefeller Panel Reports_. The goal of the United Nations and a new global monetary system was, obviously, to prevent another World War. Kissinger alluded to this just last week in the Wall Street Journal.

    The dissident right has wasted a decade tilting at windmills. It is time to stop believing we will ever have the numbers to change the world and instead adapt to it. The origin of the term “smaller units of government” that are fundamental to libertarian propaganda began in Prospect for America, with the goal being a world of autonomous, but not monetarily sovereign states that could not become large enough to wage war.

    • Replies: @paranoid goy
  141. @the grand wazoo

    The US operates an imperialist economy. We do have a strong industrial base (and export the most industrial production in terms of value). But a near majority of the GDP essentially comes from skimming off the top of global trade, $100 trillion of which flows through American banks every year.

  142. @Curmudgeon

    This is a complicated subject. But Michael Hudson, who is regularly syndicated here, is the foremost expert on the topic. I highly recommend reading his books, not simply his columns, to understand the mechanism of USD imperialism and expansion after the Nixon Shock. It is truly impossible to understand the past 50 years of geopolitics without understanding this system.

    Some, including friends I respect, argue that it took US power to financialize the world into a uniform system of exchange so that trade imbalances could better be accounted for (and that would naturally lead to the necessity of something like the Bancor).

    I’m making a conscious effort to avoid political advocacy at this point, except to say that I am certain a New Bretton Woods System will happen soon. Will it be covered in extensive, daily detail like the original in 1944? Or will it be behind closed doors to the benefit of an increasingly obvious and predatory global oligarchy.

    To me, this is the only political question that truly matters. Everything else is noise.

    • Replies: @paranoid goy
    , @Curmudgeon
  143. @Eryximachus

    I am describing the world as it is, particularly as edited by Henry Kissinger in

    I…erm…uh…hmmmm.
    Well, if you are going to quote satan himself at me, I’ll just go quietly, see? Before you start telling me about your messiah, Gates.
    Come back to humanity, friend, come back to the Light…

  144. @Eryximachus

    (this follows on my comment on your comment that ended in Kissinger’s butt)

    To me, this is the only political question that truly matters. Everything else is noise.

    …yet, I have to like you…
    Damn, you ARE good!

  145. @Mefobills

    ” . . . so it is a leap to say that private banks will behave, when history tells us otherwise.”

    However, in ‘Werner’s world’, they will be restricted in relation to their lending?

    “Quantity Theory of Credit (Werner, 1992, 1997): Rule: The allocation of bank credit creation determines what will happen to the economy – good or bad… ” P.42.

    R. A. Werner does not ‘trust’ the central banks, especially the BoJ and the ECB.?

    [MORE]

    “84:19 The ECB could have prevented these bubbles,
    84:22 just as it could have ended the ensuing banking and economic crises.
    84:27 But it refused to do so
    84:29 until major political concessions had been made,
    84:32 such as the transfer of fiscal and budgeting powers
    84:35 from each sovereign state to the European Union.
    84:42 In both Spain and Greece
    84:43 youth unemployment has been pushed up to 50%,
    84:47 forcing many youths to seek employment abroad.
    84:51 Greek doctors, for whose education Greek taxpayers have paid,
    84:55 now work in Germany.
    85:00 The deliberations of the ECB’s decision-making bodies are secret.
    85:05 The mere attempt at influencing the ECB,
    85:08 for instance through democratic debate and discussion,
    85:11 is forbidden according to the Maastricht Treaty.
    85:17 The ECB is an international organisation
    85:20 that is above and outside the laws and jurisdictions
    85:23 of any individual nation.
    85:27 Its senior staff carry diplomatic passports
    85:30 and the files and documents inside the European Central Bank
    85:34 cannot be searched or impounded
    85:36 by any police force or public prosecutor.
    85:43 The ECB is well known among economists
    85:46 as one of the world’s most powerful and least transparent central banks,
    85:52 yet its former president, Jean-Claude Trichet,
    85:56 dealt with this problem
    85:57 by merely asserting that there was no problem: ‘
    86:14 he claimed. ”
    From: ‘Princes of the Yen: Central Bank Truth Documentary’

    ➢ Who will be creating all money according to such monetary reformers?
    A: The central banks!
    ➢ If central banks are the only creators of the money supply, their powers increase further; they achieve total control” p57.

    https://citywire.co.uk/Publications/WEB_Resources/Creative/events/2018/Fixed-Income/RichardWerner.pdf

  146. @Mefobills

    I am aware there are differences. Off the top of my head, I think the agreed upon rate was gold at $35 an ounce, whereas the market price for gold varied. The gold Kruger rand was at something like $240 while having a face value of roughly $100. That doesn’t change the problem facing Nixon. There were more demands for USD exchanged for gold reserves, than reserves available, or at leat that was what was anticipated..

    Off topic, but to this day, Germany isn’t even allowed to see its gold. How did tungsten get into the core of gold bars sent to China? There were more things going on than Nixon, or any of his successors were/are told about.

  147. @Eryximachus

    Some, including friends I respect, argue that it took US power to financialize the world into a uniform system of exchange so that trade imbalances could better be accounted for (and that would naturally lead to the necessity of something like the Bancor).

    I believe it has less to do with trade imbalances being accounted for, and more to do with the international banking system. Financialization turns everything into a commodity. When everything can be bought and sold, anyone, with enough money, can own it. If anyone can own it, your sovereignty is at risk. The Euro was a project of the international banking system. It accounts for nothing, but has wrecked the economies of Southern Europe causing them to sell of public assets at fire sale prices, almost entirely to foreigners.
    There has been a push by the financial industry, since NAFTA, to create a North American version of the Euro. It’s difficult to say whether the US or Canada got screwed over worse by NAFTA, but there is no question, Mexico was the winner. Many jobs were lost in both, but my pick would be Canada, as many public assets were sold off at fire sale prices. Make no mistake, a North American currency would benefit the banks, not the countries involved.

    Slightly off topic, but the banks have been trying to control trade for decades. NS Germany’s platform was to trade commodity for commodity and was doing so successfully with several countries not part of the Bank of International Settlements. The WJC, led by bankster lawyer Samuel Untermeyer, declared war, an economic boycott, on Germany in 1933. Chavez’s Bolivarian Revolution was (and still attempts) trading commodity for commodity. In both cases, the “reserve currency” – the Pound and USD – as well as the international banking system, are left on the outside and gain nothing, while the countries involved in the trade get what they want with no “fees” to the money changers. In that context, Bancor is still a gift to the international banking cartel.

  148. Cking says:

    The United States has been to the Moon, and placed a probe on Mars, signalling next Century’s inter-planetary economy. We have a first class military. The United States is a Super Power despite our usurious, speculative, and corrupt, monetary financial, debt based, system. Look at the physical benefits, the highest standard of living, the ease of facilitating purchases, transactions, and most of all the inherent power in mobilizing America’s brain powered Labor at a snap of the fingers. Revolutionary America is not understood. From the very beginning Treasury Secretary Hamilton said that Man and America;s genius will not be held down by gold.

    100 million Americans are living in Poverty, caused by the Fed Wall St. system; Poverty is the actual national security crisis. The Wall St. owned two party political system, that of course includes the dangerous US Congress simply has no recognition of the evil and doom and no knowledge of what could and must be done. The Congressional members take orders from the Fed’s anti-national, corporate members, the banker-speculators, the TBTF cabal. Now this system has taken the nation as far as it can go. Our standard of living is threatened, Globalization’s Perpetual War on humanity, in all its forms, policies, and actions, has debased the $dollar, human life, and American Labor to the point of no-return and yet shows no sign of abating.

    From the beginning, Paul Warburg’s Federal Reserve Bank’s main responsibility was always to organize America’s wealth, money, and credit to wage war. WWI would not have been possible without the Fed. We could just as easily put the Fed under reorganization retrieve the lost, unaccounted for, and Stolen $Trillions, fund and implement the Redevelopment of North America, the Western Hemisphere, and on to the Universal Development Plan, as Henry C. Carey once expounded upon. FDR knew the history, knew the operations of the Fed, (he sold Navy bonds), the necessity for war, the British Empire’s responsibility for the Great Depression on America, etc. Nevertheless, when we had no money, FDR’s Administration set out to develop the underdeveloped United States and parts of Canada. FDR lied us into war, and Americans beat two fascist forces in two hemispheres at once and bankrupted the British Empire. Morals aside, that’s impressive.

    President Kennedy comes along and funds the science driven, technological platform, Apollo program, that eventually produced a thirty-fold return on investment driving the US economy for the next 30 years. NASA today, is the source of America’s strength. JFK went around the country selling the great continental endeavor, the nuclear powered, North American Water and Power Alliance, NAWAPA, that could have started the Redevelopment of North America. Kennedy also had his eye on reorganizing the Fed. All that ended in Dallas, in November 1963. We have a D or D+ national infrastructure, we been constantly at war, constantly debasing the dollar, tolerating corruption and thievery, dirty politics, more assassinations, class and racial warfare, and cultural degeneracy. Israel grows three times its original size, the US spends $7 Trillion dollars to go to war in Iraq and make Bibi and his fellow Likud feel safe, and that’s not enough, we should invade Iran now. How much has Perpetual War cost the United States? It’s stupid, criminally insane.

    So the national problems are not going to be corrected by gold, silver, a ‘sound’ dollar or whatever. America is in need of a reorganized political organization and banking-financial system administered out of the US Treasury, turning Wall St. into a Public Utility, supplying Credit for productive purposes, energy, industry, farm and food production, that increase the productive powers of Labor, allowing Man’s genius, to provide and flourish, instead of heeding to an idolatrous religion and/or substances that will blow air into an worthless asset bubble.

  149. @Mefobills

    Sorry, money’s true nature is law. Suck it up. Gravity also makes you fall down and bump your head..

    Money conveys and carries the concept of ownership. But ownership is only what the king allows. Ownership of valuables is at the sufferance of government, i.e. the king.

    Money exists to facilitate the trading of valuables, i.e. transfers of ownership. Whether a large plot of real estate or a sandwich at McDonalds. It represents a temporary store of value. Note the word temporary. It’s very important.

    Value, always in the eye of the beholder, tends to fade. The sandwich is only valuable for a while. If it remains uneaten for several days it’s value goes to zero. Likewise real estate unused for productive purposes is a drain on other resources. Taxes are a steady drain.

    The same thing happens with money. A dollar earned and saved years ago is not as valuable as it was when it was new.

    According to the Bible, Jesus said, “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s”. All money belongs to the king. We are just allowed to hold it for a little while. Temporarily.

  150. I learned some things. But since he slaps the readers towards the end, my ego compels me to illustrate in a few examples how this essay is not a fully reliable — or useful — lodestone. For Example:

    1. “Our hyper-legalistic culture of anti-growth mania makes that choice difficult as well.”

    For over fifty years all I have heard from far left to the far right, and just about everyone in between, has been pro growth. Despite numerous signals that the global environment is being taxed beyond repair, GROWTH has been the mantra all along. Economists have put us into complete overshoot. And if there is any “anti-growth mania” it is very recent = the claim is inaccurate, and wrong headed.

    2. Obviously bankers have a long history and inner culture. A great many bankers have been and are Jewish, including those setting up and overseeing the Federal Reserve. This cannot be considered irrelevant. A single flippant dismissal is worse than omitting/avoiding this dynamic altogether. Since this author does indeed seem learned, and must therefore know better, I hope he will fill in some of the gaps and write a ten thousand word essay that FOCUSES on the very prevalent Jewish ethnic networking in the banking industry.

    3. Finally, his conclusion is not empowering at all. We are left with an individual decision, indeed, but unless said decision gets organized it will remain impotent against the banks that are on damn near everybody’s back. And since Penfield spends a goodly amount of time hammering the abuses of mass media conglomerates as well as the Fed, how about a two pronged solution? Why not outline for the dear reader the type of pitchfork this country needs to corral these ravenous pigs?

  151. Except the problem you so adequately describe is the same exact same thing as “Keynesian neoliberalism rewarding the One Percenters with centralized banksters’ globalist plutocracy!”

    What you and Bob Murphy seem to have in common is a tendency to employ the valid points of Austrian economics (free trade and free markets are essential to civilized life and expansion results in malinvestments and crashes) but gloss over the parts that reveal the very serious misdeeds of central bankers in enriching the already rich, while at the same time allowing the government to borrow and spend, and deny the very real, very unjust, very un-free market inequality it all creates.

    As you should (do?) know, money creation inevitably results in the transfer of wealth to those who have use of it first, which leads in turn to inequality based not on merit or market forces, but on politics.

    The answer is not debt cancellation, which will only benefit the corrupt and the profligate, but , as always, liquidation, unleashing market forces to revalue assets and allocate resources.

    You know that. Why don’t you say it?

    It’s almost as if all the “independent voices” are working for the establishment. Funny, isn’t it?

  152. Sam J. says:

    What a bunch of straw Men you prop up and then knock down.

    “…What’s so good about “global” or rather international trade? Well, since Robert Murphy answered that succinctly, I’ll just quote him:

    If every individual were forced to grow his own food, sew his own clothes, and build his own home, it would certainly “create employment”—people would be working fifteen-hour days just to survive. (P.I. Guide, page 45) …”

    So if we don’t have global trade Women will be forced to spend all their time spinning thread and weaving? You know this is nonsense and you have taken the MOST EXTREME position.

    “…For the protectionist wing of the anti-globalist bloc, why stop at national borders? Why not protect local jobs at least within your given state or province?…”

    Once again you take an extreme position that is not necessary. The fact is you know that countries complete and use government funds, laws and tariffs to do so. You HAVE to know what Mercantilism means and you also know what the “American System” refers to. Controlled trade with tariffs is how the US got rich and it was followed by the Japanese and now the Chinese. It’s also obvious a certain sized market is necessary and just cities, towns and States making everything is not functional. You know this yet you essentially lie through omission about it by throwing up these wharped “choices” we have to make.

    Another,”Banks or no Banks at all”. The push is that if we don’t have the type banks we have now then we will have no banks at all and that if you resent the banks you’re just a fool. Well I resent the banks being able to print money out of thin air and then charge us for it. I resent the banks lending masses of money to their colleagues and then buying up all the industry in the country and moving it overseas to arbitrage wages. I resent the banks taking extreme financial risks pocketing the profits then asking us to prop them up when they fail, once again pocketing the profits.

    Since banks conjure money from nothing but the whole country is on the hook for the expansion of the money supply then why shouldn’t all the profit go to the treasury with a little fee for them making and keeping track of the loan????

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply -


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Penfield Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
Talk TV sensationalists and axe-grinding ideologues have fallen for a myth of immigrant lawlessness.
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
How a Young Syndicate Lawyer from Chicago Earned a Fortune Looting the Property of the Japanese-Americans, then Lived...
Becker update V1.3.2