Returning The Money To the people

Kamala Trump

Kamala Trump

Verified User
The beginning of fractional reserve lending. Fiat currency was the next major innovation in mass crime.
http://www.financialoutrage.org.uk/returning_the_money_to_the_people.htm
RETURNING THE MONEY TO THE PEOPLE’

by Ellen Brown


"Is it not obvious that there are serious defects in our banking system and our tax system that deprive most of us of fundamental rights and bestow enormous privileges on others? How many riots must we endure? How many prisons must we build? How many of our rights must we lose? How many of our young people must be sent away to fight in foreign wars before we decide that enough is enough?"

Robert de Fremery - (1916 – 2000)

One of the most remarkable admissions by a banker concerning the mysteries of his profession was made by Sir Josiah Stamp, president of the Bank of England and the second richest man in Britain in the 1920’s. Speaking at the University of Texas in 1927, he revealed:

"The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was every invented. Banking was conceived in inequity and born in sin …. Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them but leave them the power to create money, and with a flick of a pen, they will create enough money to buy it back again …. Take this great power away from them and all great fortunes like mine will disappear, for then this would be a better and happier world to live in …. But if you want to continue to be the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let bankers continue to create money and control credit."

The sleight of hand by which banks create money dates to the seventeenth century, when paper money was devised by European goldsmiths. Gold and silver coins, the standard currency in European trade, were hard to transport in bulk and could be stolen if not kept under lock and key. Many people therefore deposited their gold with the goldsmiths, who had the strongest safes in town. The goldsmiths issued convenient paper receipts that could be traded in place of the bulkier gold they represented. These paper receipts were also used when people who needed gold came to the goldsmiths for loans.

The mischief began when the goldsmiths noticed that only about 10 to 20 percent of their receipts came back to be redeemed in gold at any one time. The goldsmiths could safely ‘lend’ the gold in their strongboxes at interest several times over, as long as they kept 10 to 20 percent of the value of their outstanding loans in gold to meet the demand. They thus created ‘paper money’ (receipts for loans of gold) worth several times the gold they actually held. They typically issued notes and made loans in amounts that were four to five times their actual supply of gold. The townspeople wound up owing the goldsmiths four or five sacks of gold for every sack the goldsmiths had on deposit, gold the goldsmiths did not actually have title to and could not legally lend at all.

If the goldsmiths were careful not to overextend this ‘credit’, they could thus become quite wealthy without producing anything of value themselves. Since more gold was owed than the townspeople as a whole possessed, the wealth of the town and eventually of the country was siphoned into the vaults of these goldsmiths-turned-bankers, as the people fell progressively into their debt. As long as the bankers kept lending, the money supply would expand and the economy would be in a boom cycle. But when the credit bubble got too large, the bankers would raise interest rates and people who could not afford the new rates would default on their loans or would be unable to take out new ones. Their property would then revert to the banks, and the cycle would start again.

If a farmer had sold the same cow to five people at one time and pocketed the money, he would quickly have been jailed for fraud. But the goldsmiths had devised a system in which they traded, not things of value, but paper receipts for them. The shell game became know as ‘fractional reserve’ banking because gold held in reserve was a mere fraction of the banknotes it supported.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Well the airlines are legally allowed to sell the same product (seats on a plane) to several people at the same time as well.
 
Watermark said:
Yes, that was a defect of the representative money systems, wasn't it?
Click to expand...

You mean fractional reserve lending? Yes, representative money systems can also be afflicted with the fraud of fractional reserve lending. Fiat currency is having zero on reserve, making money out of nothing and then collecting interest on it. It's an even further step into the insanity of economic totalitarianism.

Fractional reserve lending and fiat currency are not the same thing, but they're both bad, and we're doing them both.
 
Last edited:
A monetary system based on an item depends entirely on the items rarity, or it is just a fiat system of its own. This means that the value of your money doesn't depend on what you can get with it, but on a fickle market that may have a glut or a depression of the item that is used to "back" the currency. Often governments make it illegal to otherwise own what it is backed with, unless you are the government thus making it again into a fiat currency as the claim to actual ownership is questionable.

If it is an actual backed currency all it takes to devalue it beyond measure and create an intense level of inflation is a "strike" at the wrong time of the substance backing the currency. The value of your earnings could be lost within a day.
 
uscitizen said:
So is the stock market pretty much based on the fiat currency concept ?
Click to expand...

Well, the money they make or don't make is fiat money.

The public stock market is primarily a way of passing the buck, if you will. executives can justify using slave labor, because, "hey, they work for the shareholders". Shareholders can justify slave labor because "Hey, they don't run the company", their measley voting power aside. (Damo's solution is idiotic)
 
AssHatZombie said:
Well, the money they make or don't make is fiat money.

The public stock market is primarily a way of passing the buck, if you will. executives can justify using slave labor, because, "hey, they work for the shareholders". Shareholders can justify slave labor because "Hey, they don't run the company", their measley voting power aside. (Damo's solution is idiotic)
Click to expand...
I gave no "solution" your strawman is pathetic.
 
Damocles said:
A monetary system based on an item depends entirely on the items rarity, or it is just a fiat system of its own. This means that the value of your money doesn't depend on what you can get with it, but on a fickle market that may have a glut or a depression of the item that is used to "back" the currency. Often governments make it illegal to otherwise own what it is backed with, unless you are the government thus making it again into a fiat currency as the claim to actual ownership is questionable.

If it is an actual backed currency all it takes to devalue it beyond measure and create an intense level of inflation is a "strike" at the wrong time of the substance backing the currency. The value of your earnings could be lost within a day.
Click to expand...

It's still better than a sytem who's valued is backed by the threat of government force and brutality, where inflation is guaranteed over time, and where the creators of the money enjoy an unprecedented level of control and power.


I suggest a currency backed by a mix of tangible goods, wheat, oil, meat, coupons from mcdonalds, etc.
 
AssHatZombie said:
It's still better than a sytem who's valued is backed by the threat of government force and brutality, where inflation is guaranteed over time, and where the creators of the money enjoy an unprecedented level of control and power.


I suggest a currency backed by a mix of tangible goods, wheat, oil, meat, coupons from mcdonalds, etc.
Click to expand...
This is again a fiat system. The value of those goods is only in what people are willing to pay. One must be able to quantify the true value of the item/items backing the currency and this is based on its rarity.
 
AssHatZombie said:
No. You're solution to global fascism is "now everybody vote your shares". That's what's pathetic.
Click to expand...
Pathetic is attempting to say that what hasn't worked for centuries is going to magically work now.

It isn't just pathetic, it borders on insanity.

"If we just continue doing it, it WILL work!"

One of the definitions of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result.
 
Damocles said:
Pathetic is attempting to say that what hasn't worked for centuries is going to magically work now.

It isn't just pathetic, it borders on insanity.

"If we just continue doing it, it WILL work!"

One of the definitions of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result.
Click to expand...

What hasn't worked? Not having a new world order? You and you're globalist pals are what what's wrong with the world. Nobody want your crappy plans. Capiche?
 
AssHatZombie said:
What hasn't worked? Not having a new world order? You and you're globalist pals are what what's wrong with the world. Nobody want your crappy plans. Capiche?
Click to expand...
What a maroon! What hasn't worked is running around in constant alarm at the ascendancy of "them". "They" are now so powerful they quite literally admit to plans to create a one-world government openly and yet still they gain ascendancy.

Your "plan" to defeat them is pathetic, hasn't worked one iota, yet you insist that it will and that no other tact is necessary, even to the point of mocking any ideas that are not professed on your sites.

Therefore "they" will continue to gain power, you have done nothing to take it from them.
 
Damocles said:
What a maroon! What hasn't worked is running around in constant alarm at the ascendancy of "them". "They" are now so powerful they quite literally admit to plans to create a one-world government openly and yet still they gain ascendancy.

Your "plan" to defeat them is pathetic, hasn't worked one iota, yet you insist that it will and that no other tact is necessary, even to the point of mocking any ideas that are not professed on your sites.

Therefore "they" will continue to gain power, you have done nothing to take it from them.
Click to expand...

So you just go along cuz it's easier? Or you actually believe that world unity merely for the sake of world unity, and in spite of the moral degradation that is occurring, is the best way? the elites just want to consolidate their power, strictly for themselves.
 
AssHatZombie said:
So you just go along cuz it's easier? Or you actually believe that world unity merely for the sake of world unity, and in spite of the moral degradation that is occurring, is the best way? the elites just want to consolidate their power, strictly for themselves.
Click to expand...
I say it because I point out the flawed reasoning of, "If we just continue to do this, then 'that' will happen!" when it has proven to be incorrect is more than flawed, it is pathetic.

A change of tactic is necessary, clear, decisive change otherwise your kind will just fade into obscurity under even more glaring rebuke from the rest of mankind. If you fear such a thing, and wish to fight it. Running around in panic HASN'T Worked! It isn't going to start working. It just makes people mock and laugh at you.
 
Damocles said:
I say it because I point out the flawed reasoning of, "If we just continue to do this, then 'that' will happen!" when it has proven to be incorrect is more than flawed, it is pathetic.

A change of tactic is necessary, clear, decisive change otherwise your kind will just fade into obscurity under even more glaring rebuke from the rest of mankind. If you fear such a thing, and wish to fight it. Running around in panic HASN'T Worked! It isn't going to start working. It just makes people mock and laugh at you.
Click to expand...

We haven't always had a privatized federal reserve and fiat curency. These are new. We have never second guessed the right of citizens to be afforded the protections of a border. That is new.

You can threaten and mock me all you like. Your ilk will never achieve their goals. they're just too nakedly self serving.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top