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.
Originally posted by Mary Rose
If the U.S. Congress actually represented the people, what could they do to solve the financial crisis by changing the monetary system?
(Since we don't have that Congress, how to change that is another story - but having a proposal to consider helps, I think, motivate people to try to bring about an actual change in Congress.)
Originally posted by Mary Rose
Originally posted by Mary Rose
If the U.S. Congress actually represented the people, what could they do to solve the financial crisis by changing the monetary system?
(Since we don't have that Congress, how to change that is another story - but having a proposal to consider helps, I think, motivate people to try to bring about an actual change in Congress.)
I've been thinking about this some more today.
In order to have a serious debate about how to reform the monetary system, we will have to have a different Congress. So, how can we do that?
One thing we don't want to do is continue to be fooled by the left-right paradigm. The Democrats are in so throw them out and put the Republicans in. The Republicans are in so throw them out and put the Democrats in. We're being bamboozled.
We're in an election year. I'm wondering what progress we can make.
Originally posted by Mary Rose
For sure, this Congress is not going to help us.
Originally posted by Mary RoseIn order to have a serious debate about how to reform the monetary system, we will have to have a different Congress. So, how can we do that?
Originally posted by FiatLux
Remember last time? When an outside party(Independents) wanted to join in the debate? Both parties got together(HA, a first time thing), and would not allow that to happen.
Originally posted by truthquest
Start one. And then congress will claim it was their idea all along when it becomes successful.
. . . The solution to fiat money is not MORE fiat money. It is REAL money based on tangible assets, and none has yet been discovered that serves as well as gold or silver. The assertion in the videos that wooden sticks were successfully used in England as money is grossly misleading. Tally sticks were occasionally used like government-issued script that could be applied to the payment of taxes, but at no time in history were they ever used as a medium of exchange for substantial economic transactions. To propose that we now can live with fiat money based on that myth is a non-solution of the highest order. . . .
Still claims that it would be a mistake to return to a gold-backed monetary system because most of the world’s gold now is held by the bankers. This is a deceptively appealing argument. First, it is not true. Central banks do hold more gold than any other single entity; but the total inventory of gold in the hands of private citizens, as bullion or coins or jewelry or known deposits in working mines, is much larger. In addition to that is the vast reserve of gold in the earth and oceans that has not yet even been located or measured. If money were to be restored to a precious-metal base, this largely invisible reserve would be more than adequate to supply the demand. We must remember that the limited supply of gold as a monetary base is an advantage, not a disadvantage. If it were not scarce, it would not have utility as money. The smaller the supply, the more valuable it is. As pointed out in The Creature from Jekyll Island, any amount of gold or silver will work just as well as any other amount. The only difference is how valuable each unit of measure will be. The argument that “we don’t have enough gold in the world” is without foundation, and those who say this do not understand the fundamental mechanics of money.
Bill Still does not make this argument but comes close to it when he says that most of the world’s gold is held by the bankers. Even if this were true (which it is not) we need to ask a question: If gold is so useless, why are the bankers trying to acquire it as fast as they can? And why are central bankers so strongly opposed to gold or silver-backed currencies? The answer is obvious. It is because precious metals still are, and will continue to be, a universally recognized storehouse of value, and that value cannot be manipulated by bankers OR free-spending politicians. But fiat money CAN be – and always will be. . . .
Originally posted by Mary Rose
. . .The assertion in the videos that wooden sticks were successfully used in England as money is grossly misleading. Tally sticks were occasionally used like government-issued script that could be applied to the payment of taxes, but at no time in history were they ever used as a medium of exchange for substantial economic transactions. . . . .
Originally posted by FiatLux
Here is Still`s reply to Griffin . . . .
Ed sadly bases this assertion on zero historical facts. This is exactly why I traveled to London during the filming of "The Secret of Oz" to film at the Bank of England museum holding actual examples of tally sticks kept there. According to the museum's curator, John Keyworth, tally sticks comprised well over 90% of English money for about 700 years. Although the tally sticks I filmed were the very large ones, because those are the ones Mr. Keyworth brought down from the vault with him, I included a segment in the film of Mr. Keyworth explaining that the average tally stick was the length between a man's thumb and forefinger. This small size made tally sticks convenient for every-day exchanges. Do you think that the average serf would have owned any gold coins, much less traded with them?
Originally posted by Mary Rose
Bill Still was a guest of Alex Jones today.
Originally posted by Mary Rose
Originally posted by Mary Rose
Bill Still was a guest of Alex Jones today.
I was very pleased to note that during this interview Alex explored the goldbug vs. greenbacker controversy with Bill and said that he was going to ask a goldbug about Bill's assertions the next time he has a guest on to ask. For awhile now I have been hoping that Alex would focus on solutions instead of just talking about problems and waking people up to them. It is important that we reach some consensus about whether or not we have to back our currency with a commodity so we can get on with doing something about our monetary system.