Appenzell
Switzerland
A Daily Compendium
of Free-Market Thinking
The Daily Bell Newswire - It's FREE!    


Exclusive Interview

Legendary Financial Historian Ed Griffin on the Economic Crisis, the Monetary Elite and the Future of the Internet

Sunday, November 29, 2009 - with  Scott Smith


G. Edward Griffin

The editors of the Daily Bell are pleased to publish an exclusive follow-up interview with legendary hard-money historian G. Edward Griffin (left) who has much to say about the economic crisis, the mood of the monetary elite and the effect of the Internet on freedom.

Introduction: Mr. Griffin is a distinguished film producer, author and political lecturer. He is the founder of Freedom Force International, a libertarian-oriented activist network focused on advancing individual freedom. First released in 1994, Mr. Griffin's best-selling financial book, The Creature from Jekyll Island, is a no-holds-barred look into the inner workings of the Federal Reserve banking system, or cartel if you will. Mr. Griffin peels back the layers of obstruction to rational analysis and leads the reader on a wonderfully researched, although disturbing, journey from the very beginning, when the Fed was still in the planning stages, up to the present, where it is now struggling to survive. For many years, the editors of the Daily Bell have been avid readers of Mr. Griffin's tremendous literary contributions on free markets and personal liberty. His insights are especially noteworthy given the validity of his vision and the exciting and troublesome nature of the times in which we live.

Daily Bell: Has the stimulus helped? Why or why not?

Griffin: Has the stimulus helped? I guess the question is has the stimulus helped whom? Or What? The general idea is that the stimulus is supposed to stimulate the American economy and help the American people and in that I don't believe that there is any reason to think that it has helped at all. I don't think it was really designed to do that at all. It was designed to be sold that way but I don't think that anyone in Washington thought that it would actually accomplish the end objective. Now I suppose that some people did think so, I would have to backtrack on that, there are some collectivists that believe the government can solve all problems, that the government can take everything from the citizens and redistribute it back to them in a more efficient manner. There are people like that out there and they thought the stimulus package would help. Surely everybody understands that the money that is being spent is coming out of the pockets of the very people it is supposed to help.

Daily Bell: From the central banking mechanism?

Griffin: Yes, the government doesn't have this money. The government is spending this money but they don't have this money, and the paradox there is that they are not collecting it from taxes but they are just creating it out of nothing. They are using the Federal Reserve mechanism to create this money out of nothing, push it into the economy and then that results in inflation. The cost of it is born by everybody but it is usually born mostly by the people at the bottom of the economic scale who will feel the effects of inflation the most.

Daily Bell: Modern governments are supposed to take care of the poor, but often it doesn't work that way.

Griffin: The very wealthy don't suffer too much from the effects of inflation and the upper middle class get by OK, but the bottom part of the middle class and those who are on limited incomes have a real tough time with inflation. So I am saying the cost of all these stimulus packages are falling on the very people who are supposedly to be helped and not only that, the benefit is not going to those people at all but to the politically favored class, those who are in government jobs or government contracts with the government. It is going to the banks, going to the insurance companies, the big corporations - all who have strong lobbying influence with Washington. The money is coming from the middle and lower class and going to the politically favored class. So is it helping? It is helping the politically favored class a lot, it is helping the politicians a lot because they can posture and grandstand and say we are doing something, we are taking charge here. So it is helping them. But as for helping the economy or the people at large, it is a miserable failure.

Daily Bell: Are we headed toward price inflation?

Griffin: I think we are going to see some continued deflation in the economy, particularly in the bubble sectors. These markets had a long way to contract and I don't think they are finished. However, it is inevitable that we are going to see price inflation and lots of it. Probably hyper-inflation because the only thing these people in Washington know is how to print more money which almost inevitably leads to higher prices.

Daily Bell: Isn't price inflation already in the system?

Griffin: Of course it is, particularly in cost of living sectors - food, education and healthcare. Things people have to deal with every day. We are already are seeing price inflation there.

Daily Bell: Price inflation, which inevitably results from the printing of money. ...

Griffin: What is interesting when you have a complete understanding about this, is to realize that while they are creating tremendous amounts of money out of nothing and pouring it into the economy through the politically favored class, as I mentioned earlier, at the same time a tremendous amount of money is dropping out of the system at the bottom because of the collapse of real estate values, the loss of savings, the writing off of bad loans, mortgages or writing off a $20k or $30k credit card bill or whatever the debt is. And eventually they go into bankruptcy court and they are cleared of that debt, that money literally goes out of existence.

Daily Bell: So inflation - which is actually the quantity of money - is evening out for the moment?

Griffin: With the fiat money system, money comes in and out of existence and people sometimes forget that fact. So in these economic downturn times, a lot of money is disappearing and at the same time is appearing at the top. The thing to keep your eye on is where the money is going out of the system. It's coming out of the middle class. These are the people that have lost their savings, have lost the equity in their homes. They have lost all the money that they thought they had in the way of assets, a lot of it anyway. So we see there is money going out and at the same time there is money coming in. It is a transfer of wealth. The wealthy, because of the political connections, are making more and more money and the middle class is literally being squeezed. These guys at the top hope to squeeze these middle guys out of existence.

Daily Bell: Is the power elite running scared?

Griffin: I wouldn't say they are running scared. I think they are cautious. I think things are unfolding pretty much the way they had anticipated all along. I think these people are smart enough to realize that as we come closer and closer to their New World Order, as they like to call it, the system is becoming more and more a command economy rather than a free market.

Daily Bell: But aren't people waking up?

Griffin: There is a lot of upheaval going on. I think there is anticipation that there is a lot of waking up going on. But I think they have been preparing for that. I think they are cautious, but I think they fully expect to contain that or possibly turn it to their advantage. For example, if they could encourage rebellion, revolts and riots, that would provide the excuse for martial law. I think the motivation behind their equipping police forces and national guard units with crowd control weapons and the reason they have been building these massive FEMA concentration camps all around the country, is their anticipation of the need for a final crackdown.

Daily Bell: Has the Internet contributed to elite setbacks?

Griffin: I think the Internet has been the most powerful force to set back the plans of the power elite. They hate the Internet, they hate the free exchange of information. You can see the impact all around the world. The totalitarian systems are moving heaven and earth in order to regulate and restrict the free use of the Internet. They want to control it. They can control it. And they are working very hard as we speak to maneuver the legislation so that they will control it.

Daily Bell: How are they going about it?

Griffin: They are trying to sell it to the average person as a good move for the public. They are trying to convince people that if the government doesn't control the Internet then we will have pornography, people will have their privacy stolen, children will be abused. A lot of people don't really understand the real issues. They say "oh yeah, naturally we need more and more regulation on the Internet."

Daily Bell: This is being done independently by governments?

Griffin: Actually, there is a movement afoot for the United Nations to control the Internet. The idea is that international control would be fairer than what we've got now, which is a good deal of American control. Of course, most countries don't make any pretense of respecting individual rights or free-speech. They are totalitarian in nature. The whole world is filled with dictatorships of one kind or another, and these people have no respect for human rights or freedom of speech. You can be sure that if the United Nations winds up in control that the free exchange of information that the whole thing will come to a shuttering stop!

Daily Bell: Not a pleasant thought. But meanwhile, the power elite has other things to occupy itself with. Is it fair to say that the fiat money system is broken beyond repair?

Griffin: No, the fiat money system is all that the world has right now. Of course, it is not working well at all and thus there has been talk of a new monetary system - one that might possibly be backed a little bit by gold or silver. But that's what they always say to sell it in the early stages. If you look at the people who are making these statements, the Western world leaders, they are enemies of gold and silver. They love fiat money. They want to control it because it's a means of strengthening their hand over the people. Fiat money is not dead by any means.

Daily Bell: Is there more unrest in the West than the mainstream media suggests?

Griffin: Good question, I don't know that I am qualified to answer that. My contacts indicate that there is a lot of unrest when you get out beyond informed groups to the people who make up the bulk of the population. But it's unrest that is not knowledgeable; it's not based on information.

Daily Bell: What is the trigger, then?

Griffin: It's based on emotion and envy and anger and I am afraid that that kind of unrest can be used to bring about the very opposite of what we need in this world. If you can manipulate the mobs into being angry, say for example, at capitalism, then you can end up with something even worse.

Daily Bell: Yes, that's why change has to be non-violent.

Griffin: And it has to be knowledgeable. It's not knowledgeable to say the banks are failing and therefore capitalism has failed, so let's try socialism. What's left out of that argument is that the banks are not functioning within a free-market system. The banks in the world today are a prime example of collectivism. They are in bed with the government. They couldn't exist without government favoritism and government monopoly. The banks and the government are practically one in the same. That's not capitalism, that's not free enterprise competition. But the masses have been told that that is capitalism. So when the collectivist system goes belly up, as it periodically does, then those who are misled can get angry at capitalism, which is the wrong target. I worry about that kind of rising resentment and anger in the world because it is not based on facts.

Daily Bell: Yet understanding of free-markets has taken off in the last decade, thanks to the Internet in large part.

Griffin: Funny, I am thinking that there are two parts in my brain fighting against each other at the moment. On the one hand I want to say something very positive and encouraging because there certainly are strong signs of a growing movement for the free market. But when you look at who is still in charge of the world's governments and institutions, it's still a very small component of the larger scene.

Daily Bell: But it is growing? ...

Griffin: Yes, it is definitely growing and I believe it has a solid base to it. In fact, I get a great deal of encouragement from that. We just have to keep the fire under it and I think as more and more people become upset with the collapse going on around them, they will honestly start looking for a new way. And thanks to the Internet, many are starting to realize that we haven't had free-enterprise capitalism, we haven't had free markets for many years. I'm encouraged by that, but we still have a long way to go.

Daily Bell: We compared the Internet to the Gutenberg press and said the results would be similar. Do you think so?

Griffin: I think that is a good analogy. The Gutenberg press made information available to the masses and the Internet has done the same. Good analogy, yes.

Daily Bell: We've spoken about some general threats to the freedom of the Internet. Will the current American administration be able to crack down on the Internet and censor its messages about free-markets and freedom in general?

Griffin: The current administration can do anything it wants to do. That is the answer to the question. They have the political power, the military power and the economic power. They own the economy and they control the military. And the media goes along with everything they want to do. I think they want a crack down, and will try, but they are going to need some kind of an excuse. They are going to need some kind of a major event to justify it.

Daily Bell: Will Ron Paul and his free-market message have an increasing impact on American politics?

Griffin: I believe he will, but I don't know if it will be because of his personal involvement or this thing that we might call the Ron Paul phenomenon. Ron Paul generated this phenomenon because of his astoundingly excellent position on so many policies and because he ran as a candidate of a major political party which gave him visibility, which he would never have had, particularly with young people. Once that is started, it can't be stopped really. Once the bell is rung it can't be un-rung. So I think, even if Ron Paul is not personally involved in any more political movements, that the Ron Paul phenomenon is going to continue to grow.

Daily Bell: We think the conservative movement is desperate to co-opt the libertarian message and has launched a number of artificial candidates to do so including notably Sarah Palin. Agree?

Griffin: I agree that that is a strategy they have considered and would execute if they could. When it comes to particular candidates, I don't know enough about them. Sarah Palin is very hard to pin down. I don't know what her political philosophy is. And that worries me, because if someone is offering themselves for leadership, especially in these troubled times, they have to stand up and say what it is they believe in. I am talking about real principles and not just in terms of whether we should or shouldn't drill oil. That's an issue, and an interesting issue, but what are the principles, what is the ideology, what is the yardstick that will be used, the guidelines that will be used to make all the decisions that come down the line.

Daily Bell: She comes off as free-market oriented in some ways but not in others. Most notably her ongoing support for the military industrial complex is problematic.

Griffin: I don't know what her philosophy is. But I have a feeling that what you said is absolutely correct, that they are going to package her as a quote "conservative" whatever that means. Certainly, they are going to package her as a constructive alternative to Obama. Yet when it comes to the real issues like the loss of American sovereignty, the abolition of the Federal Reserve System, important issues like that, we don't know where she stands.

Daily Bell: We think the American intel establishment is launching more and more conspiratorial and pro-war Internet sites - ones that nonetheless feature free-market rhetoric - in order to confuse the public. Agree?

Griffin: I am not aware of them but it sounds like something they should do. If I was running their strategy, that is exactly what I would do. I don't know what sites you would be referring to but I would expect that to be the case.

Daily Bell: Will the American establishment media ever get to the bottom of 9/11?

Griffin: The American establishment media will never get to the bottom of 9/11 because they are controlled by the same financial and political forces that seem in some sense responsible for 9/11. I am talking about that cluster of personalities on the Council of Foreign Relations and the people that circle around them. They are the ones that are really calling the shots, not only in the government, but also in the media, educational systems, foundations, etc. The media is as much a part of that group as the government. So I don't expect to see the media break step with the official position of the government.

Daily Bell: Why did John Farmer, the 9/11 Commission lead litigator, recently come out with a book that basically accused the entire American military, political and industrial structure of lying about what happened on that terrible day?

Griffin: I don't know, I have not read the book but I am guessing that it might be a kind of decoy to lead people away from the real issue. I suspect that it is part of a decoy. Make a half confession instead of a fuller one.

Daily Bell: Did you ever believe this sort of free-market movement would exist - as it evidently does - within your lifetime?

Griffin: I never questioned whether there would be a free market movement - I was determined to be part of it. That is much of the focus of my work. Yes I did expect to see it.

Daily Bell: Can you list some of your own notable accomplishments - outside of writing one of the best books ever on the Federal Reserve - in aiding this trend?

Griffin: As far as my own work is concerned, others would be better to evaluate how effective that was. I just keep chugging away as best I can.

Daily Bell: What do you believe will happen within the next ten years? Are you optimistic for free markets and freedom in the West and in particular in America?

Griffin: I divide my view into the short view of history and the long view. I have to be honest and say in the short run that I am very pessimistic. I believe that the forces that brought us to this situation are firmly in control of the systems of the world right now. I don't think we are going to see a turn around in the short term.

Daily Bell: You are speaking of governmental forces?

Griffin: No, I'm not just talking about the political structures, but about the media centers and the educational systems and the labor unions, the church organizations. All the great power centers where people have their leaders and derive their opinions. Those are now all firmly in the hands of collectivists who have this single goal of establishing a new world order based on the model of collectivism.

Daily Bell: You see it as very pervasive.

Griffin: They are in charge. Anyone who thinks we are going to turn that around quickly, well, I don't think he or she is being realistic. But that does not mean that the long view cannot be favorable. I'm much more optimistic in the longer term. There's no way to stop this thing in my view. They can stop some of us, but they can't stop all of us. The ideas cannot be stopped. Once people understand the truth, they are not ever going to easily forget it.

Daily Bell: You've done a great deal to help with that effort.

Griffin: All of us together are building a movement where an understanding of free-enterprise and free-markets is reaching the point of critical mass. People are passing the word. Books are being written. DVD's are being distributed. Outside of the mainstream media, the Internet is having a powerful impact. The overall flow of information is pretty strong right now. It is going to take about two generations, in my opinion, but in the long run I see total victory for free markets and for personal freedom. I feel really good about that.

Daily Bell: From our point of view, the Middle Eastern wars are intended to spread Western-style collectivist democracy to the Islamic world. Has the West stumbled in its war against the Muslim religion (failure in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, etc.)?

Griffin: Have they stumbled? In my view, the conflict between the Western world and Islam is largely manufactured. There is no question that there are extreme groups within Islam, but my own research leads me to the conclusion that those are the very groups that have been fronted, aided and abetted by forces within America because they wanted to create an enemy - a dreaded foe to justify all the other schemes.

Daily Bell: The BBC, in a program last year came to a similar conclusion.

Griffin: Without an enemy, they cannot fight a war. Without a war, they cannot justify being in the Middle East. If they are not in the Middle East, they can't control the oil and on and on you go.

Daily Bell: So ... it's at least partially manufactured?

Griffin: The war against Islam is manufactured and is actually a war that need not be. Did they fumble the war? No they created it! They created it and it is just a meme. They don't want to win the war! They want to fight the war for ten years, twenty years, thirty years. They are not fumbling it. It is exactly what they want. It is not a question of winning or losing, it's a question of just having it, prolonging it and using it as a means of scaring the daylights out of the American people and conditioning them to accept the loss of their freedom at home.

Daily Bell: Homeland Security is a dangerous institution in our opinion and one of the prime outcomes of 9/11. Do you see it being rolled back?

Griffin: I do not see it being rolled back under the present regime. It is not there because the American people wanted it, it is there because rulers wanted it and we still have the same rulers. I don't see any reason why they would roll it back. They might try to tidy it up a little bit, so far as public relations are concerned. But I would be very surprised if they cut its budget, cut its staff, cut its powers or anything like that. I think it is going to continue to expand, all aspects of it.

Daily Bell: We had a polite but public argument with the savvy Ellen Brown. Can you give us a further response to Ellen Brown's (Brownian) perspective on nationalizing banks since they, rather than the Federal Reserve, are responsible in her view for banking abuses?

Griffin: Well I am not aware of that debate, but I am certainly able to address the issue of nationalizing banks. There is no reason in my mind for the banking system, or for that matter, the automobile industry, the motion picture industry, housing or any other part of American life to be run by the government. I don't see any reason for the hospitals or medical clinics to be run by the government either.

Daily Bell: Good point.

Griffin: The idea that whenever there is a problem the solution is for the government to go in and take control is one of the most absurd and childish concepts I have ever heard of. The idea that the government can do anything better than the free market is just based on complete absence of understanding how the free market works. The only thing I think the government can do better than anybody else is to fight a war. The only thing a government can do better is to kill and destroy, and that is what it is good at. If war is used to kill and destroy in defense of a nation, in defense but not as an aggressive act, and it is used to defend the lives, liberty and property of its citizens then war performs a proper function, in my view.

Daily Bell: So you see a need for some kind of limited government, practically speaking.

Griffin: It is tragic that we have to defend ourselves. But history shows if you cannot defend yourself then you become a slave to someone who moves in and takes over. So we need to have the killing machine, but that's about all.

Daily Bell: But not the banking system?

Griffin: The idea that government should be running the banks is absurd. The American government has been in the banking business since 1913 when the Fed was founded. The solution is not to get more into the banking business but to get the government out of it completely. So I would say no, let's get the government out of the banks completely and then make the banks follow the rules and regulations that any other business must follow. Give them no favoritism, no subsidy, no bailouts. Make them honor their contracts and if they fail then they fail. Let new banks come into existence.

Daily Bell: How long has gold and silver been used as money? We think silver anyway is a substance that has been used in commerce for up to 10,000 years of human history, not 2,000 as certain monetary authorities suggest.

Griffin: I would have to get my notes out on exact dates but it doesn't really make any difference if it's been 2,000 years or 10,000 years. The real issue is not how long but how well it has performed in that function. When you look at the historical record, there is nothing that has done as well as gold or silver as a medium of exchange because it has all of the essential qualities required of money. It is not perishable, it's divisible, it has great value and it can be precisely measured. People have used just about everything for a medium of exchange but nothing has worked as well as gold and silver for thousands of years. The record is clear on it. That is what history has chosen over and over again. Why do we have to go looking around for something else? I don't understand that.

Daily Bell: Do you have any other comments to make regarding where we are at this point in the 2000s rather unique history?

Griffin: The only comment I would like to make is that it is an exciting time in which to live. I am glad I am living at this time. I am glad because, for me or anybody else who is a free-market thinking person and one who cares about the future, it gives us an opportunity to make a difference in the world. I think it is a wonderful time to be alive.

Daily Bell: Thank you, Ed. You continue to make a huge difference. It is always a pleasure and an honor to speak to a free-market legend in his own lifetime!

What can we say about this remarkable man and the remarkable and honest answers he has provided us? Ed Griffin has fought for freedom throughout his life and his famous book on the Federal Reserve has in one way or another inspired millions to question their assumptions about money and the reality of their lives in modern society.

Ed Griffin is an achiever for freedom and he has continuously made an effort to advance its cause. We don't have any explanation for what makes Ed Griffin go. He obviously does what he does because he has to do it. We're just glad he's around.

If we had any quibble with this interview (how can we, really?) it would be in the area of pessimism - even short-term pessimism. We know Ed was just explaining his viewpoint as honestly as possible, but we think, generally, that pessimism probably expends negative energy that would be better spent doing positive things.

And Ed, despite his views about the elite and their controlling ways, has quite obviously never let pessimism slow him down. He went out and wrote a tremendous book (one of a number he has written) that literally changed people's lives and perceptions of their culture.

Additionally, Ed is very active in the peaceful fight for freedom in America. He may be pessimistic, short term, but he is the most active pessimist we know. Every day he gets up and does his part, his share, to fight collectivism and to try to gain back some ground for the American Constitution.

For us, Ed is a great inspiration - as a leader, as a fighter in a peaceful revolution of ideas and as a person who has created a life based on an inspiring and important belief structure that he obviously built up on his own. Ed, by the way, lived much of his life in a pre-Internet era. Much of his adult work was conducted pre-Internet, which makes it all the more noteworthy.

For us, of course, as we have often reported, the Internet is something of a game-changer. We look at what the Internet has allowed people to accomplish in terms of supporting freedom, and we begin to believe that the changes that have been made by the Internet are "already in the pipeline."

Yes people's minds have already been changed. Now, Ed Griffin believes it may take another two generations to show overwhelming results. But maybe not. There is, as Ed himself agrees, a foundational freedom movement in America, and we see one growing in Britain as well. There are setbacks in all things, and cyclical turnings as well. But people like Ed Griffin and Ron Paul inform us through their actions and intent that there are always two sides at work - and at least two stories being told simultaneously. And maybe, ironically, Ed's own efforts may contribute to speeding things up. Freedom, real freedom, may not take two generations to achieve.

We want to end by observing that Ed Griffin-a man who certainly ought to know - sees many positives in the world today and in the Internet as well. What we'll take away from this interview is the energy it exudes, and the excitement that Ed obviously has about the future of freedom, even as he acknowledges, realistically, the challenges ahead.

Thanks again, Mr. Griffin, for all you've done and have yet to do.

Post Feedback

We look forward to hearing your feedback and will respond to you as promptly as possible. Unless you specifically request otherwise, we reserve the right to publish your comments on the Daily Bell website. Please note, harassment, vulgarity and personal attacks are not welcomed.






View Feedback

Posted by Bernard Palmer on 11/29/2009 4:59:22 AM

What an inspiration he is. When the crackdown starts they will probably take people like Ed first to try and demoralize us all.

Ed said "But the masses have been told that that is capitalism. So when the collectivist system goes belly up, as it periodically does, then those who are misled can get angry at capitalism, which is the wrong target. I worry about that kind of rising resentment and anger in the world because it is not based on facts."

Maybe it is time to redefine the word Capitalism more simply. I suggest 'Capitalism only works with gold money and Socialism only works with paper money.' That should make it easy to remember.


Reply from the Daily Bell:

'Capitalism only works with gold money and Socialism only works with paper money.'

An aphorism?

Posted by Deedle on 11/29/2009 6:11:03 AM

Another great interview. Wow. Great Sunday reads.


Reply from the Daily Bell:

Thanks for reading.

Posted by Dean Kavouras on 11/29/2009 6:31:30 AM

If they succeed in closing down or substantially controlling the free flow of ideas on the internet, will a new and better tool be quickly invented? Or said another way: if they build 20 foot fences, will people keep building 21 foot ladders?


Reply from the Daily Bell:

We agree. It seems to take a long time to corral modern technology.

Posted by Duane Bass on 11/29/2009 7:36:34 AM

caught this today in townhall.com Thought I d share, but am assuming that you already will see this


Sunday, November 29, 2009

Why we want gold to fail
by Paul Jacob

An ancient saying has it that "gold doesn't stink." A modern corollary might be: "Investors do." Well, at least I've caught a whiff of something: A short-term fall in the price of gold, soon.

A subset of investors have gone perhaps a bit too whole hog, and the price of gold is now racing upwards at an increasingly unsustainable rate.

It's an ancient observation: What goes up must come down.

The exceptions are those rare things that reach escape velocity. Gold hasn't reached that, nor is it likely to.

For some reason, in markets, whenever prices move upward faster, there's a contingent of investors who believe the price will never go down. I find this weird. A year-and-a-half ago I warned that petroleum prices would come down. I wrote this because I had begun hearing all this talk about how prices would never come down again. We were going to experience high gas prices forever. Environmentalists were pushing this, with "peak oil." Media people were pushing it, with hysterical news stories.


So I thought it a safe bet. Oil would come down, at least by the end of summer.

And it did.

Some of my readers hailed me as a, ahem, minor prophet. But I just thought I was articulating some common sense. As a commentator with a daily program titled "Common Sense," long before Glenn Beck appropriated that Paine-ful phrase for his recent book, I have trained myself to elaborate a common-sense perspective on all sorts of things.

Besides, I had at least one astute economist on my side.

Now, again, I have read the writing on the . . . blog. Daryl Guppy insists that gold has hit a spiraling-upward trend that cannot last, at least in current market conditions, and so will collapse in price soon.

I have no position in gold, save for a wedding band and one very shiny tooth. Nothing rides on this. And I suppose Guppy could be wrong. But what he says makes sense.

As I understand it, gold attracts investors afraid of economic collapse, or (worst of all possible worlds) hyperinflation.

see the rest at

http://townhall.com/columnists/PaulJacob/2009/11/29/why_we_want_gold_to_fail


Reply from the Daily Bell:

Thanks for sharing an interesting editorial. Not sure we agree.

Posted by Victor Heddins on 11/29/2009 7:42:55 AM

Very good interview.

Ed touched on a point that the Democrats cannot let America get back to the polls and I believe that.

I think what Ed pointed out is "Martial Law" may be phase two of the Obama Administration. I'd love to hear more about that possibility if you find it and what people should to prepare.

Great Paper, thanks for the truth.


Reply from the Daily Bell:

Thanks. Much of the groundwork for whatever happens or doesn't happen was laid many years before Obama in our opinion. Probably Ed's too.

Posted by Ron on 11/29/2009 7:53:51 AM

What a great interview. It really makes you think twice about what is going on in the world today.


Reply from the Daily Bell:

And maybe three times ...

Posted by Ernest Kroll on 11/29/2009 7:55:17 AM

What a great interview! Ed Griffin can certainly be defined as a forward thinker and doer.

My only problem with what he says is his reference to FEMA concentration camps, a proven hoax. I hope that you will issue a special bulletin concerning this mis-belief.

Other than that, this is one of the most excellent articles you have published, in my humble opinion. I liked especially the optimism expressed by Mr. Griffin in believing that the collectivist movement will turn around within the next two generations.


Reply from the Daily Bell:

Yes, amidst a certain amount of pessimism was a good deal of longer term optimism.

Posted by Kevin on 11/29/2009 8:55:26 AM

Very Enlightening article, moreso after re-reading my latest rant. I see how I am becoming manipulated with anger and end up helping the elite. It's just damn hard out here in the lower middle class. Thanks Bell


Reply from the Daily Bell:

Thanks for the well-formulated feedback.

Posted by DAVID BONNAR on 11/29/2009 8:56:26 AM

Stimulus money has to come from somewhere: taxes or printing money. The funds are given to some and not others depending on the political alignment of the sender and recipient. Some win, most lose. This president was obligated to pay money to the unions and break contracts with this stimulus action which was strictly unconstitutional. But, who is to challenge him? No one.


Reply from the Daily Bell:

We think the challenges are manifold, though not evident to the mainstream media.

Posted by Douglas Rosenbrock on 11/29/2009 9:13:12 AM

The world owes much to G. Edward Griffin for the work he has done for the cause of liberty.

Reading Ed's assessment of where we are, where we're going and how long it's going to take to get there is like having a mind reader revealing all my own intuitions. Indeed I sense millions of others are intuiting the very same things.

My thanks to Mr. Griffin for all his hard work and to the Daily Bell for providing this important interview. Keep up the good work.


Reply from the Daily Bell:

Thanks for the kind words.

Posted by PHILIP SCHNEIDER on 11/29/2009 9:35:08 AM

Griffin is a colorful character. He does not come into banking and economics from his academic schooling but rather from his personal investment and life's interests. I too agree with his distrust of the FED. The banking/insurance crisis of 2008/2009 has still not been explained to my satisfaction.


Reply from the Daily Bell:

As we mentioned in the other post of yours we responded to, we think the Austrian school of economics explains the "crisis" fairly well.

Posted by John on 11/29/2009 9:42:33 AM

Great article! I could not agree more with him on pretty much every subject. Especially the "Stimulus Bill"


Reply from the Daily Bell:

We agree with Ed too. That's one reason we keep interviewing him. Also, he is a gracious and eloquent man.

Posted by Anonymous17 on 11/29/2009 10:13:28 AM

Excellent interview in all respects. The only point where Mr.Griffin surprised me was his view that government is necessary for defense. It may be good at killing, but that doesn't convince me that it would be better or more effective than a free market in defense services.


Reply from the Daily Bell:

He seems to believe that there will always be threats to be dealt with by some form of supervisory authority. This is not a standard libertarian formulation. Even if there were a necessity to respond defensively or offensively, one could make the argument for "people's" militias or some sort of free-market oriented solution.

Posted by Howard Bernbaum on 11/29/2009 10:41:22 AM

I always enjoy reading Scott Smith's after thoughts and this on the Ed Griffin interview held up to his usual standard.

I do declare however, Griffin's estimate on the time it will take to turn around the world disaster brought on by criminal governments brings doom and gloom to folks like me.

We have not the years remaining to see it happen. Just a few years ago I was satisfied with my financial accomplishments and prided myself that I'd leave a tidy sum for my four children. Now, the powers that be, have devalued my nest egg, and with their continued onsloughts, healthcare and cap and trade for example, leave me in fear that I may be bankrupt before I die.

That is if they allow me to die or determine that I should die sooner so they can seize my estate.They seem to be attempting to control everything up to and including God.


Reply from the Daily Bell:

This too shall pass. It seems to be a question of timing.

Posted by Jack Swift on 11/29/2009 11:43:39 AM

Has the stimulus helped? Not really. Most of it hasn't been spent.

The Bailout on the other hand was quite successful. It is all a matter of realizing where the money went.

$700 Billion cannot be introduced into the economy without it making its presence felt. So where has it appeared?

The banks got it but they have not used it to expand credit. There has been no significant in lending. If they gave it all to their principals, that would show up in either spending or deposit by those principals. That hasn't happened either.

What has happened is that the stock market has seen an influx of a lot of investment.

By simple process of elimination it appears that the government gave the banks $800 Billion. They have used it to buy stock assets which a) bolstered the collapsing stock market, and b) bolstered their balance sheets with assets.

That was a win/win except that it has all been accomplished only on paper: Obamabucks.


Reply from the Daily Bell:

Thanks for the feedback.

Posted by Bonnie Donaldson on 11/29/2009 12:52:01 PM

Back when I was a kid and read the novel "1984", I was terrified by the idea of the TV in every room watching us. Then I finally read that if the government or powers-that-be were actually in charge of this system, how many of these TVs would actually operate at all? And that still makes sense to me. I am actually less afraid of the "powerful elites" than I am of angry mobs.

The interview was one of your best and that is saying a lot.

Mr. Griffin touched on an aspect of fiat credit that is usually either forgotten or unknown, that deflation is currently stripping debt ("money") out of the system nearly as fast as the FED is attempting to inflate. Yes, the middle class has lost greatly but the rich have also lost ground, it's just that they have more ground to lose.

I am in agreement with Mr. Griffin about the short-term pessimism. For me, the jury is still out on long-term optimism. I believe we are DNA hard-wired individually as to our personal levels of optimism/pessimism and, thus, "find" reasons for how we naturally see or approach the world. Indeed, I believe we actually/literally create the world through our personal ways of seeing and, thus, the world I experience differs from the world you experience. In other words, believing is seeing.

As to the notion of freedom suddenly, or even eventually, becoming the most important thing in the world to most people, I don't see that in my world. I can't really see freedom as more important to the average person as perceived safety. I think most people long to be a part of a group, a herd, and struggle to conform. They do this because they feel safer. And, historically, they ARE safer in groups. Our mammalian brain is still very active in us, indeed in most folks it is primary.

The true rogue, the misfit (and I am one of them) never feels secure in a group, we are always moving towards the exit. But we have always been a minority and I do not expect that to ever change unless the planet creates an entirely new species hardwired for freedom and I'm not sure that could work out.


Reply from the Daily Bell:

Excellent points, Bonnie. The deepest kind of human analyses note biological influences on sociopolitical behaviors, as you do. Most don't. Impressive.

Posted by Diana on 11/29/2009 1:44:17 PM

An interesting point Mr. Griffin made with respect to having excuses to find reasons to implement security measures. I found it amusing (but frightening) to read a headline out there this morning related to the White House crashers.

Bayh: White House Party Crashers Could Impact Security Like Shoe Bomber Did!

These are the little tricks that go on out there to keep the people down.


Reply from the Daily Bell:

At this point it seems to us that a pin could drop on a double-ply carpet and the US Congress would meet in emergency session to appropriate another billion or two for "security."

Posted by Joe on 11/29/2009 6:13:48 PM

Gee, I was surprised that Ed Griffin never said "all wars are inflationary." He was correct about the Council on Foreign Relations and their influence. But I was surprised he never stated the U.S. has no real news media or freedom of the press. Political parties and the news media have all been bought and paid for; all we have these days is propaganda. Ed's interview was great.


Reply from the Daily Bell:

Well even if he never said "all wars are inflationary" we're glad you enjoyed it. We bet he'd agree with you by the way.

Posted by William on 11/29/2009 7:42:27 PM

Terrific interview with a terrific mind! There is one area I am concerned about though. Mr. Griffin states "...let's get the government out of the banks completely and then make the banks follow the rules and regulations that any other business must follow. Give them no favoritism, no subsidy, no bailouts. Make them honor their contracts and if they fail then they fail. Let new banks come into existence."

In theory, this is great. In practice it has left us with the system we now have. How do the free market theorists propose to prevent the banksters buying the government as they have? The government and the banksters have common interests that clandestine collusion favors.

They both need each other to increase their power. Imagine how difficult it would be for a government that had to sell bonds to finance war against other governments that could just print the money. Sorry, we can't defend ourselve just now, our bonds are not selling.

The free market theorists appear to assume that both the government and the banksters will be honest and forthright, qualities history has shown neither is willing to hold when additional power is at stake.

What we end up with is banksters holding the ultimate power (the power to finance) and becoming the shadow government, untouchable, behind the show case government. This is why banking, like the maintenance of a military, is too important to be left in private hands. In public hands, at least, the actual decision makers would be out in the open, subject to scrutiny and correction in stead of hidden behind private ownership.

What is your answer to this problem?


Reply from the Daily Bell:

Thank you for the thoughtful commentary.

Elsewhere Griffin points out that the government has been in bed with the banks since the creation of the Fed in 1913. That's probably the position to focus on.

The following may or may not represent Mr. Griffin's views. But is the considered opinion of the Bell. That position, of course, is that banking ought to be a function of markets, not governments. Banking and money ought to be entirely privatized, as they once were. And they ought to stay that way. The free market itself is perfectly capable of administrating a monetary system, so long as the system is not re-mercantalized.

One would have to throw out the entire history of free-market economics, extending all the way back to Adam Smith, in order to accept the proposition that public administration of private enterprises would prove more effective than the market itself. One would have to deny marginal utility, the invisible hand, Say's law, etc. etc.

"Banking is too important to be left in private hands," you write. So what hands do you propose putting them into? As soon as you put banking in public hands (and it is there now for all intents and purposes throughout the West) it becomes inevitably subject to the influence of a powerful few that stand BEHIND government. This is the history of politics and the history of government.

How is it possible to argue that endlessly corrupt public enterprises will somehow produce moral and well-managed financial systems?

How is it possible that Ms. Brown (for William is surely a Brownian) has got so many to believe this? It is a wondrous comment on her abilities of persuasion, in our opinion (and perhaps an unacknowledged funding stream?), but not much else.

Posted by Wraft on 11/29/2009 8:16:58 PM

I wonder how Mr. Griffen feels about bi-metalism and the crime of 1873?

Will Mr. Griffen like gold as well when Rothchild owns it all?

And what keeps bugging the Daily Bell about Ellen Brown?


Reply from the Daily Bell:

Don't know what Mr. Griffin believes, but here at the Daily Bell we believe it was indeed premeditated and in the deepest sense unlawful. Silver was demonetized around the world in the late 1800s, in fact. It is astonishing to read a list of countries that decided to do it - all by themselves, and all at the same time.

Regarding Ms. Brown. It is saddening that at a time when there is a virtual renaissance of free-market thinking, and even the beginnings of a free-banking movement, Ms. Brown, who is a very bright woman, continues to offer an aggressively socialist solution to current economic problems. Also, by appropriating certain kinds of free-market vocabulary, she further muddies the waters. It is unhelpful, in our opinion.

Posted by L.M. Schwartz on 11/30/2009 12:09:52 PM

Excellent interview.

Mr. Griffin has, for decades, consistently, correctly and clearly analyzed the socio-economic and political forces at work.

You are absolutely right about Sarah Palin -- and a half-dozen other 'rising stars' should immediately come to mind. Most Americans have not learned the mental skills needed to sort out the puzzle pieces, to find the truth. Thus, there is manipulation of the left and right, the liberal and conservative, on a grand scale. We humans are slow learners and quickly forget... Mr. Griffin's opinions are not so much pessimistic as tempered by reality.


Reply from the Daily Bell:

We pointed out he was optimistic as well, just not right away!

Posted by Duane Bass on 11/30/2009 1:20:04 PM

I was listening, not watching, this interview as I read the Ed Griffin interview, and I was amazed at how they were both about the same things. . .

I do not know if you have seen this, but it was done in 2007(?). It is quite long and talks about the same things you do. The internet, and the Bell, have really opened up a smart new world.

Two years ago I was oblivious to things like the Fed, The CFR,the NWO, the 911 conspiracy. . . Anyway FYI and enjoyment. Cheers ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGAaPjqdbgQ&feature=player_embedded#


Reply from the Daily Bell:

Mr. Russo has passed away and is missed by many.

Posted by Warren Raftshol on 11/30/2009 1:54:10 PM

"Regarding Ms. Brown. It is saddening that at a time when there is a virtual renaissance of free-market thinking, and even the beginnings of a free-banking movement, Ms. Brown, who is a very bright woman, continues to offer an aggressively socialist solution to current economic problems. Also, by appropriating certain kinds of free-market vocabulary, she further muddies the waters. It is unhelpful, in our opinion."

Ellen Brown is consistent in her argument that the peasants (you and me) are better off under a sovereign fiat currency regime than under a private hard money system. You need to rebut her arguments re ancient Egypt, the end of the Roman Empire, the middle ages and colonial Pennsylvania before you will convince me.


Reply from the Daily Bell:

Three hundred years of free-market economics isn't enough?

Posted by William on 11/30/2009 9:03:45 PM

Again, you avoid the question. Banking, in the US, is not "for all intents and purposes" in public hands.

It is in private hands. How do you imagine the banksters got the money to buy the government if not from interest on loans they extend with money they made up out of thin air?

Private hands are the powerful few you and I are trying to avoid. They are hiding behind "One would have to throw out the entire history of free-market economics, extending all the way back to Adam Smith, in order to accept the proposition that public administration of private enterprises would prove more effective than the market itself. One would have to deny marginal utility, the invisible hand, Say's law, etc. etc.".

None of the ideology matters if banking remains in the hands of the 'powerful few'. Your knee jerk free market response does not answer the question.

At this point, as you have dodged this question multiple times already, you are looking like fifth columnists for Rothschild control of the world. Answer the question. How do we avoid the banksters buying the show case government and becoming the shadow government as they have?


Reply from the Daily Bell:

William, thanks for your response. However, we seem to be writing now at cross-purposes. We have done our best to respond to your feedback. But you have asked much the same question, once again, as follows:

"How do we avoid the banksters buying the show case government and becoming the shadow government as they have?"

Since we do not wish to further inflame your frustration, we would ask you to provide to the editors and readers of the Daily Bell (if you wish) the answer to this obviously rhetorical question.

If the answer is a modern variant of Colonial Scrip, that's fine. Please explain how you believe this kind of money would work today.

Grant us, thus, your public solution in some detail, as you see it, and we will gladly make a further response. We await your reply, if you wish to make one. Our readership will certainly benefit from further discussion.

Posted by Adrian W on 12/1/2009 1:36:19 AM

Excellent interview. Although, I've never had the privilege to meet Mr. Griffin in person he seems to be a man of great character, unassuming and non pretentious. Although, he is not favorable of turnaround in the short term he is in the long run. t would appear ato me the power/monetary elite would no withhold any means necessary.


Reply from the Daily Bell:

He is a long-term optimist.

Posted by Adrian W on 12/1/2009 1:55:09 AM

Excellent interview. Although, I've never had the privilege to meet Mr. Griffin in person he seems to be a man of great character, unassuming and non pretentious. Although, he is not favorable of turnaround in the short term, he is in the long run. It would appear to me the power/monetary elite would not withhold any means available for self preservation. I tend to agree with Mr. Griffin that their demise may not be quite as imminent as many free market thinkers would like it to be. Yes, the economic system is collapsing but it was also pointed out that there are other worldwide events seeming to be more a controlled disaster than chaotic. There is a lot of time, energy, violence, and corruption put into this system of things for it to fold too easily. I wonder how much 'collateral damage' it will do in its final fall?


Reply from the Daily Bell:

"I wonder how much 'collateral damage' it will do in its final fall?"

Thanks. Don't think we're at that point yet.

Posted by Jimi Bigbear on 12/1/2009 2:26:39 AM

Nice interview with Ed Griffin - much of what came out is good and true, but as you might expect, I'm going to get into the ring in William's corner and also take a moment to defend Dr. Brown and the Brownian Movement (which you and the Bell inadvertently created by crowning her with her own major economics title of "Brownian.")

Several times The Bell has mis-stated Brownian philosophy and mis-characterized it as statist/socialist, etc. It is in fact THE most truly American monetary system in the free market place of ideas. In this interview you characterized Ellen as wanting to "nationalize" not only the banks, but all business, education, etc. She has never to my knowledge advocated any such thing.

I think she, I and the Bell agree that we do NOT want to put the MONEY POWER into the hands of the federal government - for us, primarily because the federal government is owned by the Creature that has stolen the MONEY POWER. What we most want to see now, and this is fully in accord with the growing State Sovereignty Movement in the US, is State and City PUBLIC banks. PRIVATE commercial banks can continue to exist but must be stripped of their power to create money out of thin air - the power of fractional reserve banking. They will have to do what most people believe they do now - lend their own and depositors' money out at a higher percentage of interest than they pay depositors - the difference being their profit.

The thing that continues to blow my mind about the Bell and Austrians in general, is that while you "see" so much, you don't see everything. It seems to me that the Libertarian / Anarchist philosophy, largely bastardized from Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum (aka Ayn Rand) clings dogmatically to the brazen lie that the FED is part of the government or that in some mysterious way the government controls the FED! Do you seriously believe that the tail can wag the dog?!?!?!

Ed Griffin was the first to coin the expression, "The federal reserve is no more federal than federal express," I believe. He of all people should know better. The FED as he has very well documented and informed millions, is the "reactor core" of the Establishment - what you call The Power Elite. Since everyone knows what this "elephant in the living room" is, but everyone is so afraid of saying, I'll say it for us: The Zionist Plutocracy that runs the world from behind the scenes.

Rothschilds continue to be the one family dynasty that dominates this Zionist Plutocracy. Before everyone gets out their ugly sticks to get in line behind Abe Foxman of the ADL to bludgeon me for Anti-Semitism, allow me to state that of course not all Jews are Zionists and not all Zionists are Jews. Just look on YouTube for Joe Biden professing that very fact. Permit me also to write that these opinions are my own and not Dr. Brown's. I had them long before I knew who she was. Perhaps David Icke is right and the Establishment is really composed of an alien reptilian race and they run in certain bloodlines to use the Jews as cover and scapegoats, I don't know.

My study of monetary history makes Adam Smith suspect. I believe that Scotsman (and my great grandfather was from Glasgow) was on the payroll of the Rothschilds and other would be owners of the Bank of England.

I can entirely sympathize with William's frustration and view that the Bell is (I believe, unknowingly) a defacto Fifth Column for the Establishment. Why? Because it is calling for EXACTLY WHAT WE HAVE NOW: The MONEY POWER in PRIVATE hands!

"Let me issue and control a nation's money, and I care not who writes the laws." - Mayer Amschel Bauer (later) Rothschild - page 218 of Griffin's Creature. Ed clearly knows the role of the Rothschilds in the creation of the FED and properly calls it what it is - a PRIVATE banking cartel. The FED *masquerades* as a government entity, and indeed it has all the powers and none of the responsibility/accountability of a 4th branch of government. One that indeed "wags" the other three.

So get in the game, Austrians! Drop this ruse that the FED is in any way controlled by the government, but in fact the opposite is true. Acknowledge the truth of monetary history that the MONEY POWER (as President Van Buren always wrote it) belongs to the Rightful Sovereign of the Nation. Whether that be King Henry the 1st - the son of William the Conqueror - and arguably England's greatest king, as he gave England the best TRUE fiat currency - the Tally Sticks - debt free, usury free, and out of the hands of PRIVATE bankers to issue or control, or in our supposed Republic - We the People. (The Tally Sticks worked well for the English people - nearly 700 years! They were destroyed by gold coins - in a true expression of Gresham's law - bad money, commodity money, drove out good.)

The Colonial Scrip of Pennsylvania and the Greenbacks are the models for PUBLIC money. The truth of what the Austrians call "the worthless continentals" is that they won America her Independence! The Continentals became worthless toward the end of the revolutionary war, not because the GOVERNMENT printed too many of them, but because General Howe and the New York city loyalists did! The lawful government - the Continental Congress - only ever printed what they said they would, about 220 million. Howe counterfeited over a BILLION by some estimates and advertised them for sale in a New York paper! You could buy as much as you wanted for the price of the paper they were printed on. The truth of the revolutionary period - actually the two great truths are that 1.) the reason FOR the rebellion is that the Lords of Trade and Plantations, at the behest of the PRIVATE Bank of England, got the Parliament to OUTLAW Colonial Scrip, and 2.) if the Founders had to rely on Austrian economics, there never would have BEEN a revolution! Where would we have got the gold? Borrowed it from the Bank of England??? HA!

Thanks for the forum. In the end, I think we all want the same things:
Liberty, Peace, Prosperity and Love
Jimi


Reply from the Daily Bell:

Jimi.Bigbear, this is certainly an eloquent statement of the philosophy of modern "state-organized" money.

Let us point out here, by the way, that Austrian Murray Rothbard characterized Any Rand's philosophy as a "cult." There was no great love either between Ludwig von Mises and Rand. Austrians, most of them as we understand it (being pro-Austrian ourselves) are not necessarily Randian.

Rand, though interesting, may be seen as incidental, in fact, to the great conversation about free-markets that has taken place over millennia.

For a brief evolution of modern, neo-classical economic thought, we would refer you here, to a list of free-market economic philosophers stretching back several thousands years. We have trouble characterizing this millennial evolution, as William did, as an "ideology."

http://www.thedailybell.com/Public/Files/Swiss%20Perspective%20-%20A%20Brief%20History%20of%20Free-Market%20Economics%20and%20Thinkers(1).pdf

Here is a definition of socialism:

"A political theory advocating state ownership of industry."

There are plenty of others, but it will do. In advocating that the state organize and define money, Ms. Brown and Brownians generally seem to us to be advocating a form of monetary socialism (or at least government control).

We don't know if Ms. Brown wants the state to own all things. We doubt it. But if the state is to run the money system, even in a light-handed manner, what would you call it but a form of socialism (albeit restricted to money)?

We asked feedbacker William to define his public-money solution. You have mentioned it as well, as follows:

"The Colonial Scrip of Pennsylvania and the Greenbacks are the models for PUBLIC money."

We would request, then, that you describe this solution in more detail. Explain to us, especially, how a private market (free-banking) function (the regulation of the quantity of money) can be successfully implemented by what seems to amount to state price-fixing of a sort. (And free-market/free-banking proponents would argue that price-fixing never works and that only the market itself can truly determine the price and quantity of money over time.)

Perhaps we are missing something? Thanks for your several feedbacks on this important issue.

--------

Addendum: Ms. Brown stated the following in a previous email.

(Perhaps an explanation sufficient for our readers would start here.)

"People themselves create money when they take out loans. The money is extinguished when the loan is paid back, as in a community currency system. The public bank is more like a court than an "issuer" of money. This is actually the system we have now, but the middlemen are private banks, which have been allowed to pretend they are lending pre-existing money. This gives them not only unwarranted power but serious liability when they can't balance their books because of defaults, toxic assets, etc.; and because they're always siphoning profits out of the system, it has become an unsustainable ponzi scheme. In a publicly-owned banking system, the interest would return to the public, making it mathematically sound and sustainable."

--------

(Perhaps this, as well, provides an adequate jumping off point:)

"The Pennsylvania version of this currency was said to be the most effective, because they controlled the money supply and issued only enough notes so as to satisfy the demands of trade, preventing inflation. In 1938, Dr. Richard A. Lester, an economist at Princeton University, wrote that "The price level during the 52 years prior to the American Revolution and while Pennsylvania was on a paper standard was more stable than the American price level has been during any succeeding fifty-year period." Pennsylvania established a "land bank" that allowed landowners to borrow Scrip with their land as collateral. They could borrow twice the value of their land, half of it representing actual land value, and the other half representing production potential of the land. The loan was to be retired over a set period of years, with the land onwership being restored to the citizen upon payment. When the loan was fully retired, another loan could be taken out."

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:22-ogHbolk8J:www.bookrags.com/wiki/Colonial_Scrip+summary+of+A+Modest+Enquiry+into+the+Nature+and+Necessity+of+a+Paper+Currency&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk

Posted by TooBad on 12/3/2009 7:19:05 PM

Guess none of the Brownians took up your offer. They are in some cases quick to criticize and call names, (fifth column, etc.) but apparently not to seriously rebut an economic argument. I have read some of the history of free-market economics. Too bad.


Reply from the Daily Bell:

We have started an irregular "Brownian bonus" at the Daily Bell and will comment on her point of view as we go forward. We think she has made wonderfully challenging arguments to free-market thinking and these challenges ought to be addressed or at least recognized.

Also ... our editors have an amassed experience in the field of free-market thinking of over a century - and we have never individually or in aggregate been accused of being Rothschild fifth-column advocates. There is first time for everything, it seems ...

Posted by Jimi Bigbear on 12/4/2009 2:07:06 AM

Hey, don't count us Brownians out yet, TooBad! Here's the short answer: If I awoke tomorrow morning as King, here's what I'd do:

1.) Temporarily nationalize the FED. The power to coin or print money is a sovereign right - the most creative power of government for the good of the People who formed it. This power was STOLEN from We the People REPEATEDLY in the history of our Nation. As Money Masters creator, Bill Still points out in his new award winning movie, The Secret of Oz, (SecretOfOz.com) in fiscal 2008-2009, We the People paid the PRIVATE Banksters 700 BILLION dollars - just for USURY on the so called "national debt." WHY?!?!? Why are we paying THEM over $20,000 every second of every minute of every hour. . .? Why do they get to create money out of thin air and then LOAN it to US at INTEREST - and on "the full faith and credit of the US Government" - i.e., We the People, when We the People - or me, as King of the US (servant of the People)- can create the same money from nothing and spend it into existence, free of debt and free of usury?

2. I would decree that the national government would only do this for one year, after which each State would have its own PUBLIC bank, and large cities (properly City States) would have their own PUBLIC banks. After the first year, the national government would simply bill the States for their apportioned share of the legitimate functions of the national government. At the end of that first year, the national government would be cut down to size - no dept of education, no IRS, no dept of agriculture or homeland security. etc. etc. Generally, I'd put the national government back in its cage and return the power to the People via their State and City-State governments. This is in my view in keeping with the organic Constitution and Natural Law.

3. Immediately outlaw fractional reserve banking. This is the ages old scam of the goldsmiths - the first bankers. They discovered that not everyone who entrusted their gold to them came to get it at the same time, and that people started trading the warehouse receipts instead of going to get their gold to make the transaction. The goldsmith/protobanksters then started issuing more receipts than they actually held gold for - thus creating money out of thin air.

Presently MOST of our "money" is DEBT. It is created by the commercial banks. I know this is hard for some of you to grasp, but it's true. All our "money" is DEBT. The banks get to do this by fractional reserve banking. (See "Money as Debt" on YouTube)

The other main problem with fractional reserve banking is that while the bankers create the PRINCIPAL out of thin air, they do NOT create the INTEREST! This leads to a dog-eat-dog world of perpetual business failures, bankruptcies, misery and suffering, as we all fight to find the interest. Let's be clear that THIS is PURE USURY - as the bankers risked NOTHING - neither their own nor their depositors' money. Yet they continually suck this interest out of the economy.

THIS is also the true cause of inflation - not some FED BS propaganda about "too much money chasing too few goods and services!" (Who do YOU know who has "too much money?") THIS is also one of the main reasons why the FED will destroy the economy before they will allow an honest audit. As Henry Ford said, "It is well enough that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."

As Pennsylvania did with Colonial Scrip, during the first year the national treasury would LOAN all the local banks the amount they needed to have full deposits. The national treasury (nationalized FED) would loan this money to the banks at no more than 5% interest, and the banks could then do what everyone believes they do now - loan that out at a higher rate - say 8% interest. Their profit would then be the 3% spread. The 5% that the national treasury would take in would pay for the functioning of the "slimmed down " (gutted) national government - goodbye income tax!

4. I would declare that US is leaving EVERY foreign country over the next few months, that the Army and Air Force would be disbanded (Constitution permits no standing army for more than 2 years, absent a declared war - an Air Force not at all) - all things "defense" would be the Navy and the Navy's Marines if necessary. (I'd hire those returning troops who wanted a job for a year to close the southern border - but I digress. THAT invasion problem will be best addressed when we get rid of the FED/IMF/BIS/WB - the global banking cartel that destroyed the Mexican economy and laughed about it.) Returning GI's would get all that they were promised in terms of college, down payments on houses, etc. and we could put many of them to work rebuilding the infrastructure in America - and building the long over due "last mile" - fiber to every home and business.

I could go on, but hopefully this will give you gold bugs something to think about. What I plan to do is write, "Why Ron Paul and the Austrians are Wrong About Money and Banking," and I hereby offer it to The Daily Bell first for publication.

Liberty, Peace, Prosperity and Love
Jimi

PS - In said article, I will clearly demonstrate why I think that the Austrians are (I believe unknowingly) acting as a DEFACTO fifth column for the Banksters, as they are sounding the same alarms (INFLATION! INFLATION!) and beating the same drums - HON EST MON EE HON EST MON EE - as the banksters used to thwart the Greenback Party, get rid of the silver threat of Bryan and the Democrats and eventually bring out the FED - the FOURTH and most long-lived PRIVATE national bank in the history of our Nation. All four of these PRIVATE central banks were and are owned by what the Bell terms "The Power Elite," what I and others (including Dr. Paul) call the Establishment - the Globalist Zionist Plutocracy that I wrote of earlier.

PS-2 The Bell's attempted disassociation of Austrians from "Randians" notwithstanding, the two organizations are joined at the hip and greatly influence the other's thinking. Is Lew Rockwell not only a prominent Libertarian but also the Founder of the Mises Institute? It states right on the homepage: "You have found the world center of the Austrian School of economics and libertarian political and social theory." And even though Rand (Rosenbaum) didn't authorize or sanction it - her writings and philosophy are all over the Libertarian "brand."


Reply from the Daily Bell:

Well done. Whether one agrees or disagrees from a free-market standpoint. this is a thoughtful even eloquently-stated program. Misesians, Austrians, people of good will around the world would applaud the shrinkage of the (unnecessary) military efforts of the Anglo-American alliance which currently operates some 1,000 military bases around the world. We would be very interested in looking at Jimi's White Paper and he is welcome to email it to us when it is finished.

Some caveats:

1. We still don't understand why Jimi is on about Rand. She virtually excommunicated Murray Rothbard, Rockwell's mentor. and Rothbard actually wrote a play to express his disdain for the Randian "cult." There is not necessarily a great deal of overlap between classical Austrian economic philosophy, going back over 300-400 years (Mises, Hayek, Menger, etc.) and Ayn Rand.

2. One of the big problems we think we have with Ellen Brown's banking prescription is that from our point of view it is complicated (anything the state will administer is bound to be complex) and doesn't target central banking - and Jimi's perspective is, in fact, that he would KEEP a central bank (of some sort) functional. What Jimi's proposal effectively states is that the government would decide, one way or another, on the quantity of money available to the populace. Ellen Brown has her own prescription for how and why this would work. But it strikes us nonetheless as a form a price-fixing. Why not let the market decide on the price and quantity of money? That solution is called free-banking. It is NOT strictly speaking a Misesian solution (Rothbard was no fan of fractional reserve free-banking) but it is the most NATURAL marketplace solution of all. See below.

3. Here at the Daily Bell, we prefer free-banking, a system in which banks, like any other business, are able to do whatever they want so long as government stays out of the picture. If banks want to lend fractionally, they can do so, so long as the practice is publicly described so that people understand the practice. We believe if the government stayed out of the money business, society would soon revert to a private silver and gold standard that has been the hallmark of honesty money for eons. We note that in the Wizard of Oz, the book Ellen Brown quotes from on numerous occasions, Dorothy's slippers were silver and the road was gold. Ms. Brown seems to downplay this point in her analysis for some reason.

3. We're not sure what Jimi thinks inflation is. Here is a Misesian definition of inflation:

http://mises.org/story/908

As Mises explained in his essay "Inflation: An Unworkable Fiscal Policy":

"Inflation, as this term was always used everywhere and especially in this country, means increasing the quantity of money and bank notes in circulation and the quantity of bank deposits subject to check. But people today use the term `inflation' to refer to the phenomenon that is an inevitable consequence of inflation, that is the tendency of all prices and wage rates to rise. The result of this deplorable confusion is that there is no term left to signify the cause of this rise in prices and wages. There is no longer any word available to signify the phenomenon that has been, up to now, called inflation. . . . As you cannot talk about something that has no name, you cannot fight it. Those who pretend to fight inflation are in fact only fighting what is the inevitable consequence of inflation, rising prices. Their ventures are doomed to failure because they do not attack the root of the evil. They try to keep prices low while firmly committed to a policy of increasing the quantity of money that must necessarily make them soar. As long as this terminological confusion is not entirely wiped out, there cannot be any question of stopping inflation."

When inflation is seen as a general rise in prices, then anything that contributes to price increases is called inflationary. It is no longer the central bank and fractional-reserve banking that are the sources of inflation, but rather various other causes. In this framework, not only does the central bank have nothing to do with inflation, but, on the contrary, the bank is regarded, against all evidence, as an inflation fighter.

Thus, a fall in unemployment or a rise in economic activity is seen as a potential inflationary trigger which therefore must be restrained by central-bank policies. Some other triggers, such as rises in commodity prices or workers wages, are also regarded as potential threats and therefore must always be under the watchful eye of the central bank.

The popular definition cannot explain why inflation is bad
If inflation is just a general rise in prices, then why is it regarded as bad news? What kind of damage does it do? Mainstream economists maintain that inflation, which they label as general price increases, causes speculative buying, which generates waste. Inflation, it is maintained, also erodes the real incomes of pensioners and low-income earners and causes a misallocation of resources.

Despite all these assertions regarding the side effects of inflation, mainstream economics doesn't tell us how all these bad effects are caused. Why should a general rise in prices hurt some groups of people and not others? Why should a general rise in prices weaken real economic growth? Or how does inflation lead to the misallocation of resources? Moreover, if inflation is just a rise in prices, surely it is possible to offset its effects by adjusting everybody's incomes in the economy in accordance with this general price increase.

However, if we accept that inflation is an increase in the money supply, and not a rise in prices, all these assertions can be easily explained. It is not the symptoms of a disease but rather the disease itself that causes the physical damage. Likewise, it is not a general rise in prices but increases in the money supply that inflict the physical damage on wealth generators.

-------

Thanks to Jimi for kindly sharing his thoughts on a Brownian approach to economics, We're sure our readers will enjoy his comments and that he has given many of them much to ponder. We will continue to explore Brownism as we find it a most significant challenge to market-economics and the most compelling argument for state intervention into the marketplace. We disagree fundamentally with the concept that government can EVER make things "better" (especially money!), but remain most impressed with the Brownian justification and the horsepower they bring to the effort.

Posted by James Jaeger on 12/13/2009 2:55:51 PM

2. One of the big problems we think we have with Ellen Brown's banking prescription is that from our point of view it is complicated (anything the state will administer is bound to be complex) and doesn't target central banking

I have argued endlessly with Ellen that giving the Federal government the power to issue non-debt-backed fiat money would place them in a position of funding the military industrial complex to no end.

After all, that's what governments do, they perpetuate their own power while giving the ILLUSION that they are serving the public interest. Imagine if governments could print up all the money they wanted, we would have a totally militarized world.

On the other hand, allowing elite banks to print up money has its own set of evils, we have an emergent plutocracy that consists of 1% owning over 90% of the world's assets.

Thus, money should originate from neither GOVERNMENTS or ELITE BANKERS. Money should originate directly from the PEOPLE. When gold and silver are dug out of the ground by PEOPLE and ten used as a medium of exchange by such PEOPLE, this is exactly what happens: money then serves the PUBLIC interest, not the GOV interest or ELITES interest.

Why not let the market decide on the price and quantity of money?

Exactly. The ONLY intelligence that can properly monitor the supply of money is the free-market. No centralized entity, whether public or private, has the computing power to do this (at this time).

But people today use the term "inflation" to refer to the phenomenon that is an inevitable consequence of inflation, that is the tendency of all prices and wage rates to rise.

The bastardization of the term "inflation" is very similar to the bastardization of the term "capitalism." We are dealing with information warfare, more specifically a disinformation campaign is being waged by the agents of collectivism.

Marx applied this technology to the word "capitalism" by commingling this world with the term "free-market capitalism" in the public mind. Marx knew that capitalism would eventually antagonize the masses and/or fail (due to consolidation, gov intervention and greed). Thus his nefarious genius was dragging FREE-MARKET capitalism down with what we call MONOPOLY capitalism.

Monopoly capitalism inevitably arises when governments intervene and grant special privileges to an elite or form a partnership, as is the case with the Federal Reserve partnership and the U.S. Congress. Free-market capitalism is the ONLY system that will work over the long-term because such a system places the decision making process in the hands of trillions of transactions rather than under the central command of either a government or elite. Unfortunately, when you have a free-market, centralized governments and banks are out of a job.

Getting back to the word inflation. Like capitalism, this word has been hijacked and bastardized, as the DAILY BELL correctly points out. Inflation is simply the INCREASE OF THE MONEY SUPPLY. Period. Inflation is not the same as RISING PRICES. Prices rise as a result of a number of things, only one (1) of which is inflation of the money supply.

Ellen Brown argues that inflating the money supply is okay IF the new money is spent on the production of new goods. On this point she may be correct, as we have seen examples in history where the ratio of money and products, hence price stability, HAS been maintained when newly created money is spent on newly created products.

The problem with this monetary philosophy is: WHAT entity should have ISSUE AUTHORITY of money? If gov has issue authority, it will spend the fiat money into the military industrial complex. If elite banks have issue authority, they will spend the money on the creation of new banks, luxury and protection for the Rich.

But if the PEOPLE have issue authority -- the only rational solution short of rejecting the ENTIRE TECHNOLOGY OF MONEY -- they will spend the money on the business of the PEOPLE.

See my proposal for a new monetary system to replace the Federal Reserve entitled, CITIZEN CURRENCY at http://www.jaegerresearchinstitute.org/articles/system.htm and watch ORIGINAL INTENT, my new RON PAUL - PAT BUCHANAN film on how Cultural Marxists (on the far-left) and Corporate Fascists (on the far-right) are destroying the U.S. Republic and how it can be restored, such documentary at http://www.OriginalIntent.us.


Reply from the Daily Bell:

Thanks for the above precisely mapped rendering of this argument. Ms. Brown is a formidable adversary in our book and free-market thinkers ignore her at their (intellectual) peril - as you (and we) obviously do not. Thank you also for your monetary suggestion which we will read with interest - and suggest those who view these feedbacks visit as well.

Post Feedback

We look forward to hearing your feedback and will respond to you as promptly as possible. Unless you specifically request otherwise, we reserve the right to publish your comments on the Daily Bell website. Please note, harassment, vulgarity and personal attacks are not welcomed.








[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

News & Analysis
03/20/10 Shrinking Freedom in Britain
03/19/10 Party Time for Anglo-American Elites?
03/19/10 Germany Proposes IMF Greek Bailout
03/18/10 Newsweek: US in Terminal Decline
03/18/10 Afghans Seek More Gov Protection
03/17/10 Chinese Inflation - the Final Unraveling?
Guest Editorials
03/20/10 Supporting the War Instead of the Troops, by Dr. Ron Paul
03/20/10 The William Tell Initiative: For When the Swiss Have Had Enough, by Ron Holland
03/20/10 Democracy and Liberty, by Dr. Tibor Machan

Subscribe to the
Daily Bell Newswire

It's FREE!
Timely email notification of...
  • Breaking News
  • Feature Interviews
  • Guest Editorials
  • White Papers
  • eBooks & Shorts
  • Special FREE offers
...and much much more!
Exclusive Interviews
03/14/10 Rob Pfaltzgraff on Free-Market Movies, the MPI and the Future of Independent Films
03/07/10 Charles Payne on Business Broadcasting, Stock Picking Strategies and the Promise of Global Investing
02/28/10 Jim Rogers on China Opportunities, the Gold Standard and the Development of his Free-Market Financial Philosophy
© Copyright 2008 - 2010 Appenzeller Business Press AG (ARBP). All Rights Reserved. The Daily Bell is an informative compendium of independent economic views and analysis, which is published by ARBP. The information contained in the Daily Bell is for informational purposes only, is impersonal and not tailored to the investment needs of any particular person and should not be construed as financial or investment advice. ARBP does not accept any liability or responsibility for, nor does it verify the accurateness of the information being provided in the Daily Bell. Daily Bell articles and interviews may include the contributions of several Daily Bell editors and may require factual editing after their initial post. Readers of the Daily Bell or any affiliated or linked sources or sites must accept the responsibility for performing their own due diligence before acting on any of the information provided within the report regardless of the source. In addition to proprietary, internally generated content, the Daily Bell publishes guest editorials from a selection of free-market thinkers, which may have been reprinted elsewhere and are not necessarily representative of ARBP's editorial views. Copyright is attributed to the author of any guest editorials featured at the Daily Bell, unless noted otherwise. ARBP often uses images licensed from Getty Images on the Swiss Confidential website. To unsubscribe from the Daily Bell, click here.