It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Conventional Wisdom About Money Is False

page: 1
10
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 06:47 AM
link   
That is what Damon Vrabel, who attended Harvard Business School and worked on Wall Street, has said in a blog article. I came across this article by checking Max Keiser's website.

Damon has turned away from his former career and is trying to be part of steering the world toward a better way.

The article is entitled "Global Empire and the International Banking Cartel (part 2)" and here is the quote I'm referring to:

The problem isn’t that our money isn’t gold-backed. The problem isn’t fiat money. The problem is that all money is hierarchically controlled as an asset to private sector institutions and elite capital holders who have the ability to call-in their chips, i.e. your bank digits, whereas it’s an interest-bearing debt to governments and the people.


I agree with what he's said here. People think we need a gold standard and that fiat money is bad. After reading Web of Debt by Ellen Brown I think that we don't want a gold standard because that limits wealth, and that money should simply be a means of exchange, issued by the government, according to the corresponding productivity of the people.




posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


yes the gold standard wont work anymore. I think i am of the few that think we need a one world economy. NOT GOVERNMENT, ECONOMY.

1. do away with all central banks. The fact that our government has to borrow money is a farce. we should be able to print our own monies as should every country in the world.

2.We would have to come up with a limit to which each country can produce. Maybe come up with a mathmatical formula? heck maybe one already exists. or you could just print off 60,000 per citizen per year? idk

3.have the money backed by human will. sounds weird huh? What i mean is the country with the highest gnp would have the money worth the most because it would have the hardest working citizens. Of course there would have to be strict limitations on things like China's slave labor or countries like ours where machines do a great deal of the work for certain companies.

[edit on 20-8-2010 by thegreatone]



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 08:11 AM
link   
Money that doesn't have an intrinsic value is fiat money, that's why it doesn't work and gold standard does.

You can't just slap a value on a piece of paper and claim that's what it represents without some sort of backing. The problem is that as long as money can be made simply by doing so it will be done, it will then devalue the money in circulation at the time and the cycle will go round again.

Gold, silver and the other precious metals have intrinsic value, that's why they were first used as mediums for exchange, that's why they're in government and private vaults that's why wars were fought over them for millenia. The problem is indeed fiat money because of how the fiat system and the banking cartels that run it are recklessly open to abuse and are done so thoroughly.

We woudln't need a global anything if it weren't for the fraudsters at the top.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by thegreatone
. . . a one world economy . . .

2.We would have to come up with a limit to which each country can produce.


Why? Isn't this counterproductive? Why should we limit countries/the people in them?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In her book, Ellen Brown also says that governments could make loans for business enterprises and use the interest generated in place of tax money! What a radical idea! And a good one, in my opinion.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by eNumbra
 


Gold doesn't have an intrinsic value either.. it's accepted because people believe it's worth something (gasp!) just like ... fiat (which means Command) money........

I agree with the OP .. the problem has nothing to do with "what" our money is, but how it's used and for what purposes.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

The problem isn’t fiat money. The problem is that all money is hierarchically controlled

These problems are one and the same.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by eNumbra
 


Gold doesn't have an intrinsic value either.. it's accepted because people believe it's worth something (gasp!) just like ... fiat (which means Command) money........


According to the definition of intrinsic

belonging to a thing by its very nature


Gold is by it's nature shiny and rare, therefore people give it worth.

Is it as precious and valuable as society believes it to be? No. Does it have a natural value thanks to society? Yes.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by eNumbra
You can't just slap a value on a piece of paper and claim that's what it represents without some sort of backing.


You can if it's issued by a government as a means of exchange, according to the actual productivity of the people the government represents, as was done in Pennsylvania before the Revolution. Money per se has no intrinsic value. The productivity of people is what has value. As long as the government issuing the currency/credit controls the volume so that it corresponds to actual productivity, the currency retains its value.

I think people should study the example of the colonies before the American Revolution. When the banksters in England saw the prosperity the colonies were generating by issuing their own currency, that's when a law was made prohibiting it. That's what the Revolution was about. The U.S. is back where we started from.

[edit on 8/20/2010 by Mary Rose]



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by eNumbra
 


I'd have to agree with most of this, and add to it some.
There are 3 main problems with the centralized banking system.

1. Centralized control & creation of money by private (Illuminati) banks.
2. Fractional reserve banking system always creates more debt than money in circulation to pay back the debt. boom/bust cycle is built in.
Massive Fraud is always used at some point to mop up the debt created.
3. Fiat money is "the creation of money out of thin air".




posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by NewlyAwakened
 


They're one and the same now because banksters are the ones issuing the currency at interest - creating a society of debt slaves.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by zzombie
3. Fiat money is "the creation of money out of thin air".


That expression is used all the time and it has meaning when it's referring to banksters who simply collect interest from people's promise to pay. All they do is enter digits on a computer screen to collect.

Fiat money issued by a government as a means of exchange is a different ball of wax.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
They're one and the same now because banksters are the ones issuing the currency at interest - creating a society of debt slaves.

So the solution is to find some "sinless" person to whom to transfer the absolute power over the creation of money?



[edit on 20-8-2010 by NewlyAwakened]



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by eNumbra
 

There is no such thing as intrinsic value. An object has value because a human values it.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

I think people should study the example of the colonies before the American Revolution. When the banksters in England saw the prosperity the colonies were generating by issuing their own currency, that's when a law was made prohibiting it. That's what the Revolution was about. The U.S. is back where we started from.



Edit: During the revolutionary war......

The British tried to flood the Colonies with counterfeit Continental dollars. Their scheme was to undermine the fledgling nation’s currency. By making American soldiers’ pay worthless “not worth a Continental” they felt certain Washington’s army of volunteers would fall apart. Even Washington, himself, remarked that “a wagon full of dollars would not even buy a wagon full of supplies.”

Constitutional Convention debates on paper money 6 August 1787.

Although some delegates spoke in favor of granting the power (including James Madison), the majority were resolutely opposed.

Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut remarked that since "the mischiefs of the various experiments which had been made were now fresh in the public mind, and had excited the disgust of all the respectable part of America, [it was] "a favorable moment to shut and bar the door against paper money. … The power may do harm, never good." George Read of Delaware warned that the power "if not struck out, would be as alarming as the mark of the beast in Revelation." John Langdon of New Hampshire said that he would "rather reject the whole plan than retain the three words 'and emit bills.'" The vote was then taken. Nine states voted for striking out the phrase "and emit bills on the credit of the United States." Only two states (New Jersey and Maryland) voted to retain it.

It should be stressed that not all the delegates who favored the power were friends of paper money. George Mason of Virginia confessed to a "mortal hatred to paper money" and Edmund Randolph, also of Virginia, admitted to feeling great "antipathy to paper money." However, with great naïveté, both thought the federal government should have the power for "emergencies."

read more:
mises.org...




[edit on 20-8-2010 by zzombie]



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by NewlyAwakened
 


Not a person - the government.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 09:10 AM
link   
"Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men's protection and the base of a moral existence. Destroyers seize gold and leave to its owners a counterfeit pile of paper. This kills all objective standards and delivers men into the arbitrary power of an arbitrary setter of values. Gold was an objective value, an equivalent of wealth produced. Paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce it. Paper is a check drawn by legal looters upon an account which is not theirs: upon the virtue of the victims. Watch for the day when it bounces,
marked, 'Account overdrawn.' " -Ayn Rand excerpt from Atlas shruged



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Not a person - the government.

So governments are machines?

"Government" is merely a linguistic abstraction. Orders are given by people.

Perhaps you are insisting on somebody having absolute power over money because you do not see any alternative. But there is one. Few people realize this, but money is actually a naturally occurring phenomenon that grows out of barter systems when they start to get complex.

They do not need anything to sustain themselves. Human societies are naturally self-organizing.

State control of money is unnatural and illegitimate, and designed to enrich the controllers of the currency (be they private "banksters" or the "public" state) whilst impoverishing the masses.

If we repealed legal tender laws you would see how quickly the U.S. dollar would crash leaving the banksters empty-handed. The government is always in on the conspiracy. Power corrupts, always has and always will. You would be wise to get over your naïve trust in government (even if it comes with the stipulation that you just need the "right" people in it).



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by NewlyAwakened

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Not a person - the government.

So governments are machines?


Where does this come from?


Originally posted by NewlyAwakened
You would be wise to get over your naïve trust in government (even if it comes with the stipulation that you just need the "right" people in it).


No naiveté here.

Government is a necessity. That is reality.

People being the watchdog of the government is also a necessity.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Government is a necessity. That is reality.

Never said it wasn't. I just meant it's naïve to trust that it ever has the public good at "heart", or is interested in anything beyond the aggrandizement of the egos of the individuals constituting it. I stand by this.

This is especially true in a democracy, where by the time you make it to the top, in order to not have already committed political suicide you've already sold your soul a hundred times over.

I admit that government's a necessary evil. I just caution against forgetting that it's still an evil.



[edit on 20-8-2010 by NewlyAwakened]



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 

The problem is even more fundamental than that. People with two completely different visions, should not coexist too closely with each other. The solution is the two, the pro-government vs the anarchist, need to be separated once and for all. Let them both find their own path after that.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join