reply to post by Mary Rose
...I will repost Wookilia's negative review from Amazon.com regarding her book. If you'd like to take the time to read through the 104 replies to
his review it might help you understand that everything Ellen Brown says in her book is hardly "gold" no pun intended. Although it's a good book
it only portrays HER view of monetary reform and monetary history. Some of it is conjecture, opinion, fact, revisionist history whatever. I agree
with much of what she says but some of she says is downright naive and impractical.
Couple examples of the errors:
There is a difference between a gold exchange standard and a gold standard, but this distinction is not made. The gold exchange standard which Brown
repeatedly refers to as a gold standard did not fail because nations "ran out of gold" (as she claims in some form at least a dozen times), it
failed because nations comitted fraud by printing more "gold backed" paper notes than they had gold reserves. That doesn't mean the gold standard
is perfect or the ultimate solution, but how can one take an author who misses such a basic point seriously?
Brown deplores the fact that a gold standard causes gold to flee a nation that is importing more than it exports. That is what it is supposed to do!
In such a system, nations that produce little but consume much go broke, as any individual should and would. The solution is to import less or export
more, and correct the imbalance, but this elementary solution is not even mentioned.
The old "there isn't enough gold and silver" myth is repeated. An ounce of gold can be worth a car or can of coke, and society will prosper either
way, as long as the free market is allowed to set the price. The problem arises when the monetary unit is rapidly inflated, and this is difficult to
do with gold (or any commodity) because it must be dug out of the earth (or produced with real labor). Brown considers this the chief failure of gold,
but it is its chief virtue.
When a government raises ALL revenue by printing money, that is not "no taxes," as she states numerous times. It is government funded via the
inflation tax. A government with "no" tax revenue either does not exist or is borrowing continually and won't exist long. While some money printing
can be absorbed in an economy that isn't redlined, Brown consistently and naively overestimates the capacity of the economy to absorb newly printed
money without causing price increases. You fund a government as large as ours almost entirely from creating new money, there will be price increases.
It is either extremely stupid or extremely dishonest to pretend otherwise. Yes, Pennsylvania in the 1700s funded government totally from this method,
but they didn't have Social Security, Medicare, Welfare, an Empire, etc.
Brown's ultimate solution is gobley-gook socialism. A bungling, corrupt government should be trusted with full money printing powers, allowed to
control banking, mortgages, scientific R&D, give universal sustinence wages, etc., and then all will be better and prosperity will of course ensue.
This view is pitifully naive. The history of money teaches one bedrock lesson: the power to print it out of thin air will ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS be
abused. The solution is not to take the power from corrupt bankers and give it to equally corrupt politicians who will simply engage in the same
abuses, but to abolish the fraud completely by abolishing the power completely. It is mind blowing that Brown identifies the fraud, identifies the
corruption in government and banking, charts they way bankers and politicians collude to shaft the people, and then advocates turning the inflation
power over to the politicians she just identified as being as corrupt as bankers.
Somewhere in all the OZ metaphors and newspaper clippings she includes, a tenth grade understanding of the origin of money is neglected, or perhaps
lost. People accept money in the first place because it has intrinsic value as a commodity, and is a commodity. Real commodities can't be created out
of thin air the way paper or "computer" money is. Commodities require real labor to produce. When working stiffs are forced to accept money which
can be produced without real work, they get shafted when it is produced and spent by those who do no work and produce no real commodities. Politicians
fall in this category, yet Brown suggests giving them a blank check that the money creation power represents.
Brown believes government can be trusted to use this power benevolently, but this belies a fundamental miscalculation about human nature. Leaders with
the integrity of Franklin are the exception, not the rule. She believes that eliminating bond printing by the Fed, and allowing government to print
money would eliminate a huge wealth transferral to the rich. It couldn't be that corrupt politicians in bed with bankers would just print five times
as much money to make up for the lost bonds and interest payments, and then give this money to the elite for endless boondoggles. . .
The same quotes are used repeatedly, and the same points repeated. . .repeatedly. It was tiresome, especially since the errors were so eggregious.
Some sections are well written, useful, and balanced, but the most fundamental conclusions were erroneous, and fanciful. Just abolish the income tax.
Love to, but ask anyone who's spent five minutes in DC how politically difficult that would be. Brown naively endorses a socialist government that
provides housing, sets wages, targets full employment, gives food--all funded by endless money creation that will produce no inflation. Puh-lease.
Government is the problem, not the solution. The answer is not more government. What about those who actually want to take responsibility for their
own lives? What about a limited government that just gets out of people's way and let's them be free, merely preventing crime and enforcing
contracts? Maybe a tax levied in ways besides money printing is better, so I always know how much is taken, rather than wondering how many trillions
of dollars the government printed out of thin air this year? The inflation tax is the most insidious form of taxation there is, and it should be
abolished completely. Brown's solution is no solution at all because it misses this glaring point
[edit on 15-5-2010 by Zosynspiracy]