Showing 1 - 20 of 25 - Newest on top - Reorder Feedback

Yes, I can agree that the federal government has created an extra constitutional entity which controls the wealth of the American people, and which serves the specific interests of federal politicians and certain monetary elites.

The federal politicians enjoy this hold over the American people, because of the ratification of two "unconstitutional" constitutional amendments, the 16th and 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in the same year the Federal Reserve Act was passed. The year was 1913.

To remove "legal tender" protection from the USD/FRN, the Congress needs to change USC 31, Paragraph 5103 (Coinage Act of 1982).

However, I wonder whether the same politicians who derive benefits from the post-1935 Fed, are willing to vote for the demise of the cozy arrangement they enjoy through the existence of the post-1935 Fed?

I rather doubt it. The reelection of federal politicians, particularly U.S. Senators, is assured by the central bankers in return for the vote by the federal politicians to secure the interests of the monetary elites. My suspicion is that the federal politicians are wedded to this arrangement, and they will stick to the arrangement with the central bankers until the wealth of the American people has been totally plundered.

When the wealth of the American people is gone, the future of the United States is in doubt. My suggestion is for Americans to agitate for the repeal of the 16th and 17th Amendments, NOW. There is nothing that threatens the interests of the monetary elites more than the repeal of those two amendments. Under pressure to repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments, federal politicians and central bankers might be willing to agree to a parallel currency, before they are able to plundered all the wealth of Americans.

I can agree with this and suggest we focus our attention on that specific point and not get caught up in the details of how the current system works. I believe Ron Paul has a proposal/bill for honest currency.

So basically we could all agree on one point. The gov't has created a cartel. We should start with repealling the legal tender law and let the free market take it from there.

Yes, I can agree that the federal government has created an extra constitutional entity which controls the wealth of the American people, and which serves the specific interests of federal politicians and certain monetary elites.

The federal politicians enjoy this hold over the American people, because of the ratification of two "unconstitutional" constitutional amendments, the 16th and 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in the same year the Federal Reserve Act was passed. The year was 1913.

To remove "legal tender" protection from the USD/FRN, the Congress needs to change USC 31, Paragraph 5103 (Coinage Act of 1982).

However, I wonder whether the same politicians who derive benefits from the post-1935 Fed, are willing to vote for the demise of the cozy arrangement they enjoy through the existence of the post-1935 Fed?

I rather doubt it. The reelection of federal politicians, particularly U.S. Senators, is assured by the central bankers in return for the vote by the federal politicians to secure the interests of the monetary elites. My suspicion is that the federal politicians are wedded to this arrangement, and they will stick to the arrangement with the central bankers until the wealth of the American people has been totally plundered.

When the wealth of the American people is gone, the future of the United States is in doubt. My suggestion is for Americans to agitate for the repeal of the 16th and 17th Amendments, NOW. There is nothing that threatens the interests of the monetary elites more than the repeal of those two amendments. Under pressure to repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments, federal politicians and central bankers might be willing to agree to a parallel currency, before they are able to plundered all the wealth of Americans.

Don't you know millions of Americans REALLY DO GET IT? Question is, what pray tell do you propose for a viable solution?

So basically we could all agree on one point. The gov't has created a cartel. We should start with repealling the legal tender law and let the free market take it from there.

"I do not believe I ever made the statement that "the Fed has to have Treasury funds on hand before it can print money!" It would make no sense."

Then,

"What I have said, is that member banks of the Fed system (and by now all major banks are member banks of the Fed system) have to present Treasury paper to the Fed Agent to obtain authorization for additional credit expansion."

Pardon me, but this adds up to the Fed having Treasury funds on hand to print money!

"Member banks" = The Fed.

"Treasury paper" = Treasury funds.

"Credit expansion" = Printing money.

"Present ... to the Fed Agent to obtain authorization" = Required to have on hand before being allowed.

I hope you can see where we get this impression from.

"Member banks" = The Fed.

Wrong. The post-1935 Fed is the "Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System". This board represents the power of the U.S. Congress to vote debt and obligate the American taxpayers to pay for the debt and interest through funds collected pursuant to the 16th Amendment, and the power of the major money center banks, which are able to influence the U.S. Senate to protect their interests, thanks to the ratification of the 17th Amendment. "The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System", established by the 1935 Banking Act, performs an "authoritative" function.

This "authoritive" function is totally different from the "oversight" function which was performed by "The Board of Directors of the Federal Reserve System" established under the original 1913 Federal Reserve Act as an arm of the U.S. Congress to oversee the currency creation by the pre-1935 Fed System.


"Treasury paper" = Treasury funds.

Wrong. Treasury paper is evidence of government debt. The purchase of Treasury Bills with USD/FRNs paid to the banks as loan payment by borrowers, representing his productivity and extinguishes government debt.

"Credit expansion" = Printing money.

Partly correct. Banks are authorized to extent new credit only once they have proved to the Fed Agents that previously extended loans (created money out of "thin air", as you coin it) are paid back with borrowers' productivity evidenced by the USD/FRNs he "earned".

"Present ... to the Fed Agent to obtain authorization" = Required to have on hand before being allowed.

Absolutely correct. The banks are required to first prove that previously extented credit, in form of personal and business loans, have been paid back before authorization is obtained from the Fed Agent to further extent credit (create money out of "thin air", as you coin it).

"I hope you can see where we get this impression from."

I certainly can see that. However, I cannot see that the problems lies with me. It seems that those who are questioning my opinion are much less familar with the subject of the Federal Reserve than I am. Otherwise, some of the things I have pointed out should have been obvious.

"The fixation of the Mises Institute (or at least many people associated with it) on the "fraud" of fractional reserve banking is like a lead weight around the neck of this very fine institution. Read the contract. The money is not yours once you deposit it. Understand bankruptcy law as relates banking - you do not have first claim on your deposits, you get to stand in line with the other creditors, many of whom have claims senior to yours."

This is the reality, but this is not how it is sold. It is sold to people as if the bank is a storehouse for their savings and a way to turn their paycheck into usable currency. Not one in ten knows what the real relationship between themselves and their bank really is. I've never read the fine print in my checking or savings account contract that states the truth about the relationship. Maybe it's in there. Even if it is, the way it is peddled makes it a fraud, and the elevation of this fraud to the entire monetary system makes it the biggest fraud in human history, by some measures.

Again, the local bank lends funds that are not someone's savings nor their own: in payment for doing a few hours paperwork they hold title to your real estate, and if you miss a few payments, they end up with the physical asset. What has happened? What has happened was the consummation of a fraud. The fake money itself is fraudulent. The way it is legitimized is fraudulent. The laws that make it legal tender are evil. Perhaps in free banking the practice could be decriminalized, but only if the fraud element is removed, so people know exactly what they are getting into and have the choice to opt out.

"This is the reality, but this is not how it is sold. It is sold to people as if the bank is a storehouse for their savings and a way to turn their paycheck into usable currency. Not one in ten knows what the real relationship between themselves and their bank really is."

Not to be too blunt, but ignorance of the contract and the law does not allow us to enjoy a contract of our wishes.

Why on earth do depositors need FDIC insurance if they, in fact, have first claim on their deposits? When the FDIC decides to take down an insolvent bank, the good assets go to another institution, the "insurance" pays off the depositors. Why don't the good assets just get sold to pay off the depositors? Why, in fact, is the money not there in the first place? Where did it go if it is mine? How can I get paid interest unless the bank has lent the money to someone on my behalf? Why don't I have to pay a fee for storage for my assets, if in fact the bank is storing them for my use on demand?


"Again, the local bank lends funds that are not someone's savings nor their own: in payment for doing a few hours paperwork they hold title to your real estate, and if you miss a few payments, they end up with the physical asset. What has happened? What has happened was the consummation of a fraud. The fake money itself is fraudulent. The way it is legitimized is fraudulent. The laws that make it legal tender are evil. Perhaps in free banking the practice could be decriminalized, but only if the fraud element is removed, so people know exactly what they are getting into and have the choice to opt out."

There are many practices around the system of banking that a) only occur in an extreme magnitude due to government dictate and protection, and b) may also be fraudulent. But fractional reserve banking, in and of itself, is not one of these.

FRB, in a free market system, is a perfectly viable option for banking and money / credit. If a bank gets carried away with the practice, it will fail; its notes would trade at a great discount. This discipline of failure will be the best check and balance on the system; additionally, strip away the government created idea of limited personal liability and the system will very well discipline itself.

Even today, I would have no complaint about FRB absent the government backing of the entire cartel via the Fed and FDIC (to name two of many enabling agencies). The crime is in the government protection, not in the practice itself.

Of course, I would continue to state that FRB is inflationary to the money supply, but the impact will be only to members of society that utilize or transact in the specific currency being overly expanded. Here again, the crime today is the legal tender laws, giving us little choice, at least little choice absent large risks and consequences.

Such is my view of Real Bills; it is also fractional reserve banking (watch Ingo come out of his chair when he reads that, telling me some law passed by some legislature can defy economic reality). My only point and criticism with real bills is that it is an inflationary expansion of credit (well that and the false idea that there is not enough gold for a modern economy to function. Well probably a couple of other fallacious notions, but that is beside the point). That people choose to use it is entirely up to them in a free market. I even might find use for real bills, if we ever see free banking again, and if free banking results in market participants creating credit in this way (here again, watch Ingo jump).

Same for FRB: in a free market, there will certainly be fractional reserve banks. Mises himself seems to have accepted this. He also accepted the idea that the market would keep the excesses in check.

@ DB

"We are still waiting, Mr. Bischoff, for your explanation - and some evidence - of why you state the Fed has to have Treasury funds on hand before it can print money!"

I do not believe I ever made the statement that "the Fed has to have Treasury funds on hand before it can print money!" It would make no sense. If you have my specific writing to assert such, I would very much like to see it.

What I have said, is that member banks of the Fed system (and by now all major banks are member banks of the Fed system) have to present Treasury paper to the Fed Agent to obtain authorization for additional credit expansion. Loans made by member banks of the Fed System have to qualify as "good loans". The Fed Agent accepts proof of "good loans" in the form of U.S. Treasury Bills only. A bank must acquire these U.S. Treasury Bills with USD/FRNs received in payment on the loan from the debtor. That is what I believe I pointed out before, and I stand by this statement.

Another method by which the Fed System regulates authority for their member banks to extent credit is by varying the legal reserve requirements.

These are procedures spelled out in the 1935 Banking Act, and they apply to the individual member banks in the post-1935 Fed System. They are designed to mirror the effect the "Real Bills Doctrine" as applied by the commercial banks prior to 1935.

Federal Open Market Operations, conducted through the NY FED Offices, are an auction to sell U.S. Treasury Notes and Bonds. FOMOs have nothing to do with the provisons of the 1935 Banking Act that prescribe authorization to member banks on how they can extent credit.

My very point about the video rests with its failure to point out the workings of the Fed and how they difference in pre- and post-1935 operations.

I suggest to study the Federal Reserve Act. Whereever the original FRA has been changed, the date of the change is noted. By sorting the pre-1935 changes, and the post-1935 changes, the outline of two totally different systems crystalizes.

If one understands the "Real Bills Doctrine", which was the basis of the original 1913 FRA, one can then understand how the 1935 Banking Act ushered in a central bank to monetize government debt. It kept the name Federal Reserve to fool the public. With its reserve requirements and and proof of legal reserves, the post-1935 Fed System tried to mirror the function of the pre-1933 commercial banks.

As I mentioned, FOMOs are not part of the provisions that apply to member banks. They are a separate funtion assigned to the Federal Open Market Committee by the 1935 Banking Act.

It should however be noted, that illegal FOMOs were conducted by the NY Fed under the governorship of Benjamin Strong from the early 1920s until the stock market crash in 1929, and until shortly thereafter. In 1934 these decade long violations by the NY Fed were ex-post-facto legalized by the U.S. Congress (See Paragraph (b), Section 14 of the FRA added in Jan. 1934)

This is as much evidence as I care to provide at this point. Further evidence can be found online under the "Federal Reserve System".

"I do not believe I ever made the statement that "the Fed has to have Treasury funds on hand before it can print money!" It would make no sense."

Then,

"What I have said, is that member banks of the Fed system (and by now all major banks are member banks of the Fed system) have to present Treasury paper to the Fed Agent to obtain authorization for additional credit expansion."

Pardon me, but this adds up to the Fed having Treasury funds on hand to print money!

"Member banks" = The Fed.

"Treasury paper" = Treasury funds.

"Credit expansion" = Printing money.

"Present ... to the Fed Agent to obtain authorization" = Required to have on hand before being allowed.

I hope you can see where we get this impression from.

I find this video worthwhile for those not yet exposed to the systematic depredations of the monetary system. In other words, a good introductory video.

The fixation of the Mises Institute (or at least many people associated with it) on the "fraud" of fractional reserve banking is like a lead weight around the neck of this very fine institution. Read the contract. The money is not yours once you deposit it. Understand bankruptcy law as relates banking - you do not have first claim on your deposits, you get to stand in line with the other creditors, many of whom have claims senior to yours.

FRB certainly can be viewed as inflationary to the money supply; FRB certainly adds risk to the enterprise and those doing business with it. But it isn't fraud. Therefore I find no reason by which to "stop" it in a free-market-based system.

"The fixation of the Mises Institute (or at least many people associated with it) on the "fraud" of fractional reserve banking is like a lead weight around the neck of this very fine institution. Read the contract. The money is not yours once you deposit it. Understand bankruptcy law as relates banking - you do not have first claim on your deposits, you get to stand in line with the other creditors, many of whom have claims senior to yours."

This is the reality, but this is not how it is sold. It is sold to people as if the bank is a storehouse for their savings and a way to turn their paycheck into usable currency. Not one in ten knows what the real relationship between themselves and their bank really is. I've never read the fine print in my checking or savings account contract that states the truth about the relationship. Maybe it's in there. Even if it is, the way it is peddled makes it a fraud, and the elevation of this fraud to the entire monetary system makes it the biggest fraud in human history, by some measures.

Again, the local bank lends funds that are not someone's savings nor their own: in payment for doing a few hours paperwork they hold title to your real estate, and if you miss a few payments, they end up with the physical asset. What has happened? What has happened was the consummation of a fraud. The fake money itself is fraudulent. The way it is legitimized is fraudulent. The laws that make it legal tender are evil. Perhaps in free banking the practice could be decriminalized, but only if the fraud element is removed, so people know exactly what they are getting into and have the choice to opt out.

The video is good but not convincing.

I agree with John D. in that driving the point home that the 'Theft is Real'.

I agree with the Bug that focusing on Fractional Reserve Banking is counter productive as it surely should play some role in an Open Competition of Currencies.

I agree with Ingo that more historical attention could be payed to Real Bills, however strongly disagree with his opinion that a Regulated FED would be desirable and any different then what we have today.

I would also like to add that to really change America a video like this needs to dispel the delusion that the Central Banks help people by inflating the money supply. Most people realize that the CBs inflate the money supply but think that in doing so it enables them to have all the nice luxuries they have come to enjoy, (2 story house, LED TV, swimming pool, Scooter, Motorcycle, new car, family vacation to Turkey, ect.) So I would suggest focusing on that.

@ DB

"We are still waiting, Mr. Bischoff, for your explanation - and some evidence - of why you state the Fed has to have Treasury funds on hand before it can print money!"

I do not believe I ever made the statement that "the Fed has to have Treasury funds on hand before it can print money!" It would make no sense. If you have my specific writing to assert such, I would very much like to see it.

What I have said, is that member banks of the Fed system (and by now all major banks are member banks of the Fed system) have to present Treasury paper to the Fed Agent to obtain authorization for additional credit expansion. Loans made by member banks of the Fed System have to qualify as "good loans". The Fed Agent accepts proof of "good loans" in the form of U.S. Treasury Bills only. A bank must acquire these U.S. Treasury Bills with USD/FRNs received in payment on the loan from the debtor. That is what I believe I pointed out before, and I stand by this statement.

Another method by which the Fed System regulates authority for their member banks to extent credit is by varying the legal reserve requirements.

These are procedures spelled out in the 1935 Banking Act, and they apply to the individual member banks in the post-1935 Fed System. They are designed to mirror the effect the "Real Bills Doctrine" as applied by the commercial banks prior to 1935.

Federal Open Market Operations, conducted through the NY FED Offices, are an auction to sell U.S. Treasury Notes and Bonds. FOMOs have nothing to do with the provisons of the 1935 Banking Act that prescribe authorization to member banks on how they can extent credit.

My very point about the video rests with its failure to point out the workings of the Fed and how they difference in pre- and post-1935 operations.

I suggest to study the Federal Reserve Act. Whereever the original FRA has been changed, the date of the change is noted. By sorting the pre-1935 changes, and the post-1935 changes, the outline of two totally different systems crystalizes.

If one understands the "Real Bills Doctrine", which was the basis of the original 1913 FRA, one can then understand how the 1935 Banking Act ushered in a central bank to monetize government debt. It kept the name Federal Reserve to fool the public. With its reserve requirements and and proof of legal reserves, the post-1935 Fed System tried to mirror the function of the pre-1933 commercial banks.

As I mentioned, FOMOs are not part of the provisions that apply to member banks. They are a separate funtion assigned to the Federal Open Market Committee by the 1935 Banking Act.

It should however be noted, that illegal FOMOs were conducted by the NY Fed under the governorship of Benjamin Strong from the early 1920s until the stock market crash in 1929, and until shortly thereafter. In 1934 these decade long violations by the NY Fed were ex-post-facto legalized by the U.S. Congress (See Paragraph (b), Section 14 of the FRA added in Jan. 1934)

This is as much evidence as I care to provide at this point. Further evidence can be found online under the "Federal Reserve System".

"I had begged you to be specific in your criticism of my assertion about the Fed."

I was quite specific, but you ignored my first post and only commented on the second. It is your track record to avoid direct comment, as your views often do not stand up against rational analysis and scrutiny.

You have regularly demonstrated the ability to avoid direct critique and comment. You do so again.

Many of your views are irrational; some are dangerous and potentially deadly. I will continue to comment accordingly.

I might even get emotional and have an outburst.

"Too bad."

Not for me.

"I was quite specific, but you ignored my first post and only commented on the second. It is your track record to avoid direct comment, as your views often do not stand up against rational analysis and scrutiny."

There is one specific comment which I will avoid. The reason is that my parents taught me to be polite, regardless.

BM,

Readers of these comments have just had another example of your obfuscation.

I had begged you to be specific in your criticism of my assertion about the Fed. You were not. If you truly desired discourse instead of spewing ideological clap trap, you would have tried to engage me with reason and facts.

I assume, and other readers may as well come to the conclusion, that besides emotional out bursts, you are devoid of adding anything to the discussion about the video. Too bad.

"I had begged you to be specific in your criticism of my assertion about the Fed."

I was quite specific, but you ignored my first post and only commented on the second. It is your track record to avoid direct comment, as your views often do not stand up against rational analysis and scrutiny.

You have regularly demonstrated the ability to avoid direct critique and comment. You do so again.

Many of your views are irrational; some are dangerous and potentially deadly. I will continue to comment accordingly.

I might even get emotional and have an outburst.

"Too bad."

Not for me.

Reply from The Daily Bell

We are still waiting, Mr. Bischoff, for your explanation - and some evidence - of why you state the Fed has to have Treasury funds on hand before it can print money!

"Tell me, who is more dangerous to the public discourse, a person who tries to obfuscate any matter under discussion by attacking the capacity of a person to form an opinion, or a person who presents his point of view for consideration, no matter how agreeable...???"

Ingo, you advocate many positions that do not stand rational scrutiny. That is one thing. Additionally, you advocate positions, such as your view about the Fed, that will ensure the continued slavery of your fellow man.

You repeat the same irrational statements countless times on these pages, not leaving bad enough alone.

It is quite clear you do so not because of ignorance; you are obviously very well read.

My comments to your posts reflect this reality of your views; yes it is my reality, and I feel rather strongly about it. I will continue to comment accordingly. You advocate dangerous and deadly proposals; I will be consistent and outspoken in my reply.

BM,

Readers of these comments have just had another example of your obfuscation.

I had begged you to be specific in your criticism of my assertion about the Fed. You were not. If you truly desired discourse instead of spewing ideological clap trap, you would have tried to engage me with reason and facts.

I assume, and other readers may as well come to the conclusion, that besides emotional out bursts, you are devoid of adding anything to the discussion about the video. Too bad.

BM,

I try not to judge people for having an opinion. I try to ferret out how they arrived at it.

On the other hand, you seem not to be interested at all why somebody hold a specific opinion. If you don't like anothers opinion, you merely castigate the person for holding it.

Tell me, who is more dangerous to the public discourse, a person who tries to obfuscate any matter under discussion by attacking the capacity of a person to form an opinion, or a person who presents his point of view for consideration, no matter how agreeable...???

I won't answer the question. I let the readers of my reply come to an answer for themselves.

In my comment about the video, I maintain that functioning of the pre-1935 Fed is 180 degrees opposed to functioning of the post-1935 Fed. This fact is not brought out in the video. You attack me for making this assertion. Can you tell me why..???

When you do so, please spare me your outbursts about evil, and all the other emotional verbiage. Confine yourself to dealing with my assertion, if you can.

Here again is my assertion: "The function of the pre-1935 Fed is fundamentally different from the function of the post-1935 Fed. Any solution to the present monetary system must consider this fact. The video in question does not do so."

Can you tell me why I am wrong...??? I am anxious to find out.

"Tell me, who is more dangerous to the public discourse, a person who tries to obfuscate any matter under discussion by attacking the capacity of a person to form an opinion, or a person who presents his point of view for consideration, no matter how agreeable...???"

Ingo, you advocate many positions that do not stand rational scrutiny. That is one thing. Additionally, you advocate positions, such as your view about the Fed, that will ensure the continued slavery of your fellow man.

You repeat the same irrational statements countless times on these pages, not leaving bad enough alone.

It is quite clear you do so not because of ignorance; you are obviously very well read.

My comments to your posts reflect this reality of your views; yes it is my reality, and I feel rather strongly about it. I will continue to comment accordingly. You advocate dangerous and deadly proposals; I will be consistent and outspoken in my reply.

BM,

I try not to judge people for having an opinion. I try to ferret out how they arrived at it.

On the other hand, you seem not to be interested at all why somebody hold a specific opinion. If you don't like anothers opinion, you merely castigate the person for holding it.

Tell me, who is more dangerous to the public discourse, a person who tries to obfuscate any matter under discussion by attacking the capacity of a person to form an opinion, or a person who presents his point of view for consideration, no matter how agreeable...???

I won't answer the question. I let the readers of my reply come to an answer for themselves.

In my comment about the video, I maintain that functioning of the pre-1935 Fed is 180 degrees opposed to functioning of the post-1935 Fed. This fact is not brought out in the video. You attack me for making this assertion. Can you tell me why..???

When you do so, please spare me your outbursts about evil, and all the other emotional verbiage. Confine yourself to dealing with my assertion, if you can.

Here again is my assertion: "The function of the pre-1935 Fed is fundamentally different from the function of the post-1935 Fed. Any solution to the present monetary system must consider this fact. The video in question does not do so."

Can you tell me why I am wrong...??? I am anxious to find out.

"Here again is my assertion: "The function of the pre-1935 Fed is fundamentally different from the function of the post-1935 Fed. Any solution to the present monetary system must consider this fact. The video in question does not do so.""

You cannot separate the two. You yourself have said the pre 1935 Fed did many things outside of its charter, that gained approval only retroactively by Congress.

By your own words, the pre 1935 Fed was not the pre 19235 Fed. Yet you claim it is different than the post 1935 Fed.

It engaged in deviant activity prior to 1935. Yet you claim you want to return to the original charter, the same charter that created the monster that caused havoc on the economy in the 1920s, and brought on the depression.

Why you desire this, and claim it is a good and useful organization, even pre 1935, is a desire that cannot stand the scrutiny of free markets. It was a protected monopoly, a thing that could only stand due to special government favor.

Regardless of its original charter, inherent in what it was (a government protected monopoly/cartel) were the seeds of destruction for the country.

This was true beginning in 1913. It has nothing to do with 1935.

Reply from The Daily Bell

We agree with the Bug.

"Furthermore, the video presentation creates a distorted view of the FED by its failure to make a distinction between the pre 1935 Federal Reserve System and the post 1935 Federal Reserve System. That fact alone leads to all the wrong conclusions in finding a way to fix the present monetary system.

Ingo, your naivete shines through in all its brilliance. The Fed was certain from the beginning to be exactly what it has become, whatever your view of the supposed noble purpose of the original legislation.

To centralize and monopolize such power! Somehow you believe this could be contained and managed? You believe those on the secret train ride didn't know the ultimate objective and how to take the first step toward it?

"IMHO, central bankers and federal politicians have little to fear from the view of American monetary history presented in this video."

Actually, they fear very little the apologists for these organizations of evil. Evil from inception; yet you are a staunch defender, an apologist.

Many of your positions are naive or worse, and to the extent you convince others to your view, they are dangerous. This is but one example.

BM,

I try not to judge people for having an opinion. I try to ferret out how they arrived at it.

On the other hand, you seem not to be interested at all why somebody hold a specific opinion. If you don't like anothers opinion, you merely castigate the person for holding it.

Tell me, who is more dangerous to the public discourse, a person who tries to obfuscate any matter under discussion by attacking the capacity of a person to form an opinion, or a person who presents his point of view for consideration, no matter how agreeable...???

I won't answer the question. I let the readers of my reply come to an answer for themselves.

In my comment about the video, I maintain that functioning of the pre-1935 Fed is 180 degrees opposed to functioning of the post-1935 Fed. This fact is not brought out in the video. You attack me for making this assertion. Can you tell me why..???

When you do so, please spare me your outbursts about evil, and all the other emotional verbiage. Confine yourself to dealing with my assertion, if you can.

Here again is my assertion: "The function of the pre-1935 Fed is fundamentally different from the function of the post-1935 Fed. Any solution to the present monetary system must consider this fact. The video in question does not do so."

Can you tell me why I am wrong...??? I am anxious to find out.

This video is undeniably very good. My quibble is that having been produced around 1995, the video is somewhat dated. The Fed's activities back then were almost benign in comparison to their vicious economic destructiveness during the most recent boom and still ongoing bust.

The video's message would, I believe, have been strongly amplified if it covered the Fed's recent secret bailout at taxpayer expense of large banks, mortgage companies, insurance companies and foreign banks who knowingly, foolishly and even criminally trafficked in near worthless mortgage securities. Of course this entire fiasco was made possible by the Fed's earlier frenetic post-dot-com-bust credit expansion.

And as John Danforth pointed out, it's important for people to understand that the growing wealth disparity in America is not the consequence of free market capitalism. It is the inevitable outcome of the monetary inflation tax whereby newly created money flows first into the hands of the government bureaucracy, government contractors and the financial industry. The video should have hammered the cause of this wealth transfer real hard and not just mention that people have been growing poorer for many years.

To attempt to explain the monetary history in North Americana without once mentioning the role which Adam Smith's "Real Bills Doctrine" played in the creation of currency must necessarily lead to a distorted view.

Banking in the American colonies cannot be explained by the "goldsmith" example as the video attempts to do. It has to be explained by the use of Real Bills employed in the creation of currency such as the "Pennsylvania Pound". (See the Adam Smith's book "The Wealth of Nations", published in 1776 wherein he mentions the Bank of Philadelphia and the successful currency it created.)

Furthermore, the video presentation creates a distorted view of the FED by its failure to make a distinction between the pre 1935 Federal Reserve System and the post 1935 Federal Reserve System. That fact alone leads to all the wrong conclusions in finding a way to fix the present monetary system.

I could cite many more examples contained in this presentation which lead to a distorted view of money and banking in America.

IMHO, central bankers and federal politicians have little to fear from the view of American monetary history presented in this video.

"Furthermore, the video presentation creates a distorted view of the FED by its failure to make a distinction between the pre 1935 Federal Reserve System and the post 1935 Federal Reserve System. That fact alone leads to all the wrong conclusions in finding a way to fix the present monetary system.

Ingo, your naivete shines through in all its brilliance. The Fed was certain from the beginning to be exactly what it has become, whatever your view of the supposed noble purpose of the original legislation.

To centralize and monopolize such power! Somehow you believe this could be contained and managed? You believe those on the secret train ride didn't know the ultimate objective and how to take the first step toward it?

"IMHO, central bankers and federal politicians have little to fear from the view of American monetary history presented in this video."

Actually, they fear very little the apologists for these organizations of evil. Evil from inception; yet you are a staunch defender, an apologist.

Many of your positions are naive or worse, and to the extent you convince others to your view, they are dangerous. This is but one example.

I find this video worthwhile for those not yet exposed to the systematic depredations of the monetary system. In other words, a good introductory video.

The fixation of the Mises Institute (or at least many people associated with it) on the "fraud" of fractional reserve banking is like a lead weight around the neck of this very fine institution. Read the contract. The money is not yours once you deposit it. Understand bankruptcy law as relates banking - you do not have first claim on your deposits, you get to stand in line with the other creditors, many of whom have claims senior to yours.

FRB certainly can be viewed as inflationary to the money supply; FRB certainly adds risk to the enterprise and those doing business with it. But it isn't fraud. Therefore I find no reason by which to "stop" it in a free-market-based system.

Matthew 6:12 says "Forgive us our debts as we ourselves have forgiven our debtors". (In the scriptures all sin is reckoned as debt.) How many of us would be willing to forgive all our debts no matter who held them? Would we be willing to relinquish all our personal loans, savings accounts, company, municipal and government bonds? If we would do so then all of our own debts could be cancelled. This is what is known as a Jubilee. If everyone does this then the debt problem would be erased overnight.

When you think about this please observe how many excuses your mind will come up with to avoid doing it. This is why the very next line in the Lord's prayer says "Lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil." The evil is right there with us, in our minds, and will usually overcome us in the most rational sensible prudent way imaginable. Is it any wonder then that we live in an evil world when everyone in it is evil by God's standards. The devil we fear is in our own hearts and minds and can only be overcome when we abandon all our rights to ourselves and surrender, yield, to the only One who can deliver us from evil.

The Federal Reserve, the money system, is a tissue of lies, illusions, deceptions and prevarications created by the evil minds of men. The only hold it has over you is the hold your own mind has over you because your own mind is an integral part of the system unless you have already surrendered to the Lord Jesus Christ, are following on to know Him and have put on, received, His Mind.

"Then Jesus said to those Judeans who had believed him, 'If you continue to follow my teaching, you are really my disciples and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.' 'We are descendants of Abraham,' they replied, 'and have never been anyone's slaves! How can you say, 'You will become free'?' Jesus answered them, 'I tell you the solemn truth, everyone who practices sin (debt) is a slave of sin (debt). The slave does not remain in the family forever, but the son remains forever. So if the son sets you free, you will be really free." (Matthew 8:31-36)