Monetary Reform Act

reply to post by TheBandit795


Your so right. The longer we drag this old system out, the harder it will be on the people when it does hit bottom. The moment the Fed was allowed into the picture, was the day our government threw the constitution away. The contract between the Fed and our government, was a contract for the death of the economy of this country.

reply to post by TheBandit795


I agree. I see the monetary system as a kingpin. Take away the enormous choke-hold the banksters have over us because they control our access to a necessity of life - you defeat the NWO agenda, in my opinion.

But the task before us is colossal! How are we going to pull it off?

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.

reply to post by Mary Rose


To me, you let the old system fall. It is this period of time, after the fall of the old system, and before a new one is started, you watch and see who it is that wants to bring a new system on line. It doesn`t matter who it is, or how many different systems there are. Each system should be looked at, as well as the people who are trying to bring it about, to see what their interest in this is. Is it a good system, and are these people here to help the people, and not here to just make a profit from it? That is problem we face right now. We just allow others to make the choices for us, when in fact, it should be US who makes the choice. It should be up to the people, not the political parties. It`s the political parties that have put us in this fix we are in now.

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.

This is why we need to stop voting party line. We need people to run for office, who don`t belong to any party. Remember, the party owns them, no matter which side it is. Vote for what the person CAN do, not for what they THINK they can do.

Edit to add:
I was just thinking about the last thing you said here, about what we can do this year. Well, not much from what I can see, as long as both parties are allowed to rule the court. 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. Now, what does that tell you? It tells me, someone else made a challenge to them, one they felt they could not handle, and the only way around it, was for them to agree, to not allow that to happen. Now, to me, that says they are one in the same. Both work for an agenda, not the people.

[edit on 1-9-2010 by FiatLux]

[edit on 1-9-2010 by FiatLux]

Originally posted by Mary Rose
For sure, this Congress is not going to help us.

When is the last time any congress has done anything that made any sense that does a lot to help people out?

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?

Your thinking too much in terms of fake Democracy and too little in terms of real Democracy. In a real democracy, the people do the legwork and the congress merely play along. So rather than worrying about congress can do for you in the future, worry about what you can do without congress and then later on they can tag along and pretend it was their idea all along. You want a new monetary system? Start one. And then congress will claim it was their idea all along when it becomes successful.

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.

I know.

The obstacles are enormous.

In general, there is also the problem of even getting on the ballot - making it through the primary election.

And the problem of electronic voting fraud.

Originally posted by truthquest
Start one. And then congress will claim it was their idea all along when it becomes successful.

Please elaborate.

reply to post by Mary Rose


I have found a well-written rebuttal to Bill Still's work written by the author of The Creature from Jekyll Island G. Edward Griffin. It is entitled "Meet Bill Still, Fiat Money Advocate."

Excerpts:

. . . 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. . . .

Money reform is good, as long as it`s not fiat related. Does this remind you of the global currency movement Mary?

reply to post by FiatLux



They're related and the most important issues. A global currency means that the NWO succeeds and monetary reform fails.

The argument between greenbackers and goldbugs within the patriot community is so distressing. If we can't agree on the solution or come up with some compromise we're going to get gobbled up in the end.

G. Edward Griffin does a good job refuting Bill Still, but where's his plan for a transition from what we have to what he would like us to have?

Here is Still`s reply to Griffin if you haven`t read it.


z6.invisionfree.com...

reply to post by FiatLux


Thanks! I look forward to reading it.

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 . . . .

From Still's reply:

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?

Bill Still was a guest of Alex Jones today. He pointed out that we need to:

1. Eliminate from Congress the ability to borrow money.
   
2. Cap the quantity of money but don't back it by gold or any other commodity because with high frequency trading the price can be manipulated.
   
3. Issue currency by the Congress of the U.S. without debt.
   

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.

I am thrilled to see that Max Keiser has had Ellen Brown on as a guest and the last five minutes they began talking about greenbacks vs. gold-backed money. They ran out of time but Max is going to have her on again. This is very good news. Both of these people are very knowledgeable.

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.

Fiat money can be refuted simply by pointing out it requires violent force to impose upon the public.

It really is that simple.

If the public is given a choice of currencies, they will ALWAYS chose market money (gold or silver) as currency over fiat unbacked paper - always.

If something is good, it does not require the application of violent force to impose.

Here's a long list of lectures by Austrian economists, including Ron Paul, on why privately issued gold backed currencies are the only acceptable form of money.

fascistsoup.com...

The following is The Case For The 100% Gold Dollar by Murray Rothbard. Probably one of the best stated cases for sound money in the history of economic literature.

www.youtube.com...

In addition to those lectures, I highly recommend Money, Banking and the Federal Reserve which is the hard money version of The Money Masters.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Thanks but way too much homework!!

I disagree with you on your violent force thing. People don't care what kind of money it is as long as it's accepted in the market place and inflation is kept in check. People are very practical.