@DB, once again I ask your courtesy in posting this latest response to the three part post by Carl Herman (LA County Nonpartisan Examiner) on 12/26/2010 11:17:42 AM:

Click to view link

Reply from The Daily Bell

It is already up!

@DB:

Thank you for your detailed responses; the most recent I just read. Please read what I wrote to mosquito and see if you have any disagreement. For you:

Just as government has been "captured" so has the free-market from any criminal prosecution that I believe you want government to secure us from personal damages.

"Free market" "leadership" is in criminal complicity with government "leadership" to enslave us.

For example, the Fed advertises "minimizing inflation" when it causes it in typical Orwellian spin. "Free market" banks do not point this out because they are complicit in this fraud and choose collusion over a free market.

For example, "free market" banksters fraudulently made home loans and then were so-called "bailed out" rather than criminally prosecuted.

For example, "free market" industry "leaders" and political "leaders" engage in "emperor has no clothes obvious" unlawful wars for profits and extending their slavery overseas. Neither stands for the rule of law to prevent mass murder and theft of long-term trillions of our tax dollars.

We should, as mosquito gets his name from Ron Paul, be buzzing about these.

So, just for you: my stand for the possibility of transparent and accountable government under the law does indeed, as you and I explain in these comments, contrast with our world in the present where government is psychopathically tragic-comic lying sacks of spin who steal as much as they can imagine while ignoring the law.

But DB/Andrew/elves: you, too, live in similar fantasy land because you stand for a free market that always becomes captured and corrupt at larger levels. We can count on these "leaders" to lie just as we can count on our government "leaders" to lie.

Bottom line: aren't we in agreement standing for freedom of choice in a market place of ideas whereby the public is free to learn and consider different choices of "government" either from free-market competitors or free-market elected representatives?

Aren't we both wise and speaking as powerfully as we can to warn of the dangers of criminal fraud and theft with our money and how we can best gain the fruits of our labor?

If you don't like the idea of governed money, or a state bank, fine. We welcome full public understanding, debate, consideration, and choice. To reframe again to Ron Paul: an audit of the Fed will reveal much of what we must know to move forward.

Transparent data, as much a dream as a free market and government, is what I encourage from you and want to be held accountable to in my writing and teaching. To the extent you provide it, I thank you.

Reply from The Daily Bell

OK, here is the point:

Public or Sovereign banking is as apt to be "taken over" by elites as free-banking is. Here at the Bell, we would much rather argue for free-market money than state-issued "sovereign" money. It is not a complicated issue.

However, our belief is that the current system may be unsustainable and it is perfectly possible that free-banking may emerge naturally as a default option as people put gold and silver back into the system.

We have suggested that Ms. Brown make an issue of her willingness to advocate for ALL forms of legitimate alternative money (gold and silver, free-banking, etc.) Her suggestions might be seen as less controversial by Misesian money-types if this were the case.

We do believe that her suggestions are perhaps better than what we have now, and have stated that in staff Bell articles.

@ Ramon S. and Mark Medinnas:

You're up. Read my response to bionic mosquito and then, with all respect, put-up or shut-up.

3 of 3:

3. In conclusion (and thank you all with the intellectual curiosity to still be reading), we agree that government in its current form is a criminal element crushing the possibility of the free market. They are not to be trusted, but prosecuted (or Truth and Reconciliation). We agree in free market proposals to respond to fundamental economic questions whereby professional and independent economists can be of genuine service to provide some educated analyses of price tags for different choices; that is, people can and should choose among different policy responses from sidewalks to monetary systems.

When humanity is unleashed, we can just look at the data as policies progress with the ability to tweak and/or abandon ineffective policies. So really, perhaps the only difference between us is that I see government as a possibility of teamwork with tremendous potential to serve our communities because they are from our communities and can be held accountable when we have access to real data.

Today, our governments are lying sacks of spin who exist at the top to dominate us, yes. Do you really want to give-up on the possibility of this level of teamwork and economies of scale for our consideration of how to best employ our resources, mosquito? I do not. I want it considered. I am happy for it to always lose the vote; and that brings me to the final point.]

Let's take your public roads example. Do I understand you correctly that a community will vote to allow a free-market response? How do you choose this?

And think about this: imagine you and I are in the same community. I point to the homeless population that for whatever reason do not receive assistance or charity. I point to the 50-plus cost-benefit analyses that all conclude that our community saves money if we take them off the streets (search the article, "All government cost studies: sheltering the homeless is most cost-effective") and that my voice and vote is to do so for my personal morality and enjoyment of not seeing them, not smelling them, and increasing tourism and business.

Mosquito: all I ask is for my voice to be respected. All I ask is my proposal to be considered by our community. All I ask is my freedom of speech. All I want is freedom of choice.

If the community chooses to decline this proposal, fine. If it accepts, fine. We have examples of both choices and can continue to collect data for our community's ongoing consideration.

Ok, mosquito: see any problem in this, or are we in agreement? Is this choice slavery for you? If so, how? Is this theft? If so, how? You don't like our community's choices, or I don't: fine; we always have the freedom to move.

Same deal with health care as a community-wide insurance plan. Yeah, it bothers me to see kids without health care. Yeah, I propose we tax your ass as a community member to help pay for it. Yeah, I'll lobby for those votes. And yes, my understanding of the data is we save $100 to $300 billion a year over our current cartel of companies parasitizing us with "health care" fraudulent labels.

And yes, I welcome competing economic data, I support you in your voice and vote to oppose this policy choice. You want to speak and vote in opposition, go for it. Your voice will help polarize the issue and help community members choose. This is called dialectics from the Greeks; they encouraged the strongest voices from opposing interpretations of data and opposing policy positions to speak-up. I encourage your voice, mosquito, in absolute accuracy. I promise to act in good faith to understand and communicate your position at least as well as you do. I only want facts, freedom, and accuracy to facilitate our choices.

Again: any problem here, mosquito? Where's the slavery or theft in this philosophy?

Same deal with Ellen Brown's proposal for public banking right now, and a state bank to compete with the bank cartels. You want to tell us this is impossible? Fine; we welcome your arguments as positive contributions to point-out the potential problems. You want to speak and vote against this and keep banking with the banksters or credit unions or whatever? Fine; do it. But please, consider the community that you really want with a free market for proposals to be understood factually and chosen freely. Please don't lie about what we propose.

Readers can and should compare our comments, mosquito, as they can and should compare our policy proposals.

Same deal with a national monetary proposal to end our national debt that is criminal fraud and at the heart of our government/"elite's" slavery over us. You don't like this? Fine. Give us your best alternative and allow people to understand and choose in freedom.

So, mosquito: you have a problem with a market-driven freedom of choice? And please remember: choices in policy are tested in the market. New data is always generated, telling us how our choices perform. New proposals are always the name of the game of the word you might now embrace: government. Data of costs and benefits are always the name of the game in another word you might accept: economics.

That's how I hold those ideas at once as a paradox, mosquito: tell the truth of what we have now while telling the truth of what we can now choose.

Readers, and you, have the freedom to choose, synthesize between us, and move forward as each sees best.

2 of 3:

2. Readers and mosquito, let's talk about public and private goods/services. Thank you for the roads resource; I read the first 60 pages and enjoyed its discourse. As the first chapter concluded, yes, there has to be a better way. We agree on this. I also agree in the context that human creativity must be unleashed rather than controlled by Big Brother.

Linking to the problem of government and cost, do you know what a CAFR is? It's an acronym for Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. Governments print them; they reveal that they have over-taxed the American public by the trillions (yes, you might want to read that again). I walk people through the data in this article, with specific page numbers of three CAFRs I read to reveal that the state of California, L.A. County and the City of L.A. have over $450 billion in "investments" of our money: "CAFR: US agencies have billions, trillions in investments while crying budget deficits". Compare this $450 billion lorded over by just three government agencies as communists (really, what is the best label of these self-chosen "elite" fascist, psychopathic, war-mongering, market manipulating criminals?) to the California budget deficit of ~$20 billion and this is a prima facie case of criminal fraud revealing the "elite's" usual role to crush the public as their debt slaves.

So we agree that government is the problem. Can you hear this now?

That said, I demand the human possibility of teamwork. I stand for human dignity to throw-off our "masters" and work together. That means the unleashing of economics as an intelligent analysis of resources and methods to put price tags on choices for goods and services. Mosquito, because we understand government is now our soul-enslaving criminal opponent proven by the objective data, we don't know how public goods and services would work when humanity is unleashed.

Please read this again to understand me: because we understand government is now our soul-enslaving criminal opponent proven by the objective data, we don't know how public goods and services would work when humanity is unleashed.

Therefore, let's bring this point home: I'm fine with free market competition, as I've written in the comments: Here's your future for considering public sidewalks, public fire departments, or a public monetary system; 1 of 2 choices:

1. Consider costs and benefits of various methods for what you want done. Get professional input. Discuss. Consider. Choose. Have the minority opinion available for policy adjustments as we learn through implementation. Structure transparency to evaluate progress through regular accounting. Have criminal investigations when laws are violated (what a novel idea).

You want a competing monetary system of gold and silver? Fine. Propose it and subject it to scrutiny. I want a national monetary system and ending our "debt supply." You should say, "Fine; let's scrutinize your proposal."

Don't like honest analysis? Ok. Do this instead:

2. Be afraid of "government." Surrender the power of ever having our largest community-level cooperation on anything. Give up on universal health care; it can't be done so don't even try. Forget about world peace through law; that's too big, too. Be small. It helps to get down on the floor, whine, and when you have to walk, wear a t-shirt that says , "Dictate me" because you can never have efficient whole systems without being under dictatorship.

Here's our present; again in two choices:

1. State the facts of our criminal oligarchy destroying our economy through fraud and debt. End it. I recommend a Truth and Reconciliation process because these psychopaths are throughout "leadership" in politics, economics, and corporate media.

Look from this point of freedom and see what makes sense to us.

For now, try to understand each others' proposals without distortion, fear, and painting our criminal government past upon what can be created in a newly-created future.

2. See #2 above.

For my best academic proposal, search "Open proposal to US higher education."

Thank you all for your engagement on this trillion dollar-level policy topic. May 2011 be our most prosperous and virtuous year yet; and may that be true for each year to come.

@bionic mosquito:
1 of 3:
Thank you for your detailed response. I have three points (yes, I do use numbered points a lot):

1. I'll let the readers choose, of course, the degree to which we respond to each other and the qualities therein. I also write for them, using you as a literary foil. However, given the high quality of your response, perhaps you and I will communicate because I see common ground thanks to your intelligent response. We'll see. My concern is the mystery of how you could possibly not recognize my repeated responses to your listed questions. From my first post I addressed the paradox that government is now the problem and repeated this many times.

Really, how is the following to be misunderstood by you?

This part then transitions into the next point, where we have agreement: "It must have political integrity, yes, so that is the paradox that trips-up many apparent critics."

And then: "You are soooo right: the government has been a psychopathic mass-murdering force. Absolutely. Yes. You are correct; they have killed hundreds of millions of human beings in the century we were all born into, with various insidious propaganda."

And this: "As stated, and as I write and you correctly summarize, I agree with you that government is psychopathic mass-murderers (I may have one-upped you with "psychopath" although if readers look-up that term they'll find a veneer of socially-acceptable talk thinly covering viciously destructive acts).

You're missing three points, I think:

1. Yes, it's a paradox: the government that lies, kills, and steals from us must be stopped, AND by definition government is "We the People." Collective work, teamwork, businesses, families are all forms of "We the People." Want to get something big done? Ok; you'll need a team and governance. Stop being afraid of the idea of "government." You use it daily. Teams are powerful. We need them. A city can work together through its governance. I know you understand this. Economics to put price tags on choices, and transparent accounting is required; I know you understand that, too.

2. Money can, and we argue should, be a public rather than a private service. This is a basic economics question: if you want something done, who should do it? Do we want public sidewalks, fire department, national defense (again a paradox on that last one)? If you think about what we collectively want done, is money one of those areas? We don't want barter. We don't want to trust banks to limit their fractional reserve lending on their word, so already we're introducing government for regulation. I'm saying we need to overcome our entire history of vicious "leadership" to demand an accountable monetary system.

3. Don't throw out the baby elf with the cold bathwater (that one is pushing it). Economics is a powerful tool when used with integrity: it can tell us the costs and benefits of different methods of production. In this case, we are claiming that the economic benefits of creating "money" rather than "debt" is in the trillions each year.

And yes, this can also hire unemployed who do not find jobs in the free market for infrastructure investment. Btw: all 50 professional cost-benefit analyses in the US found that intervening in homelessness to provide minimal housing, food, health care (a nurse coming by once a week) is less expensive than tolerating homelessness. I wrote on that, if anyone's interested in that data."

Anthony.

You write "The only solution is to allow money to be valued by the market itself, as it has been for thousands of years."

Putting all other comments aside. Just how do YOU propose to get there from here? It is easy to criticize and speculate on what someone else is doing but is is another thing come up with a definitive, step by step, plan that will solve the financial woes that plague, not only America, but the entire world.

You stated that getting rid of the federal reserve system was good but you offer no definitive solutions on fixing the problem.

Possibly all of what Ellen Brown is doing, whether it is correct or not, and the tremendous following she has amassed is the result of the awakening of the American people to the fact that something needs to change and change very quickly before a complete disaster occurs.

Ellen Brown is a 'doer' just like Thomas Edison who conducted several thousand experiments before he was successful with the light bulb. Obviously something needs to change and people of your ilk are not part of the solution.

When you have a definitive solution as to how we can fix the economy then present your facts in a positive forum. Until then don't try to drag down those who are doing the work that needs to be done. If you want to reply to these remarks then reply with a definitive plan of your own that is fool proof and will accomplish a secure solution.

Reply from The Daily Bell

We have often suggested that Ellen Brown's system (at least as she has currently enunciated it) might be better than what exists today. But we are a free-market website and have been consistent in our criticism of sovereign money for several years. Is a prescription always a cure?

In Bell feedbacks, we suggested that Ellen Brown make a point of stating that her system be offered alongside other, competitive monetary solutions (free-banking, etc.) We think a free-market money system would win out and have suggested such a system regularly.

In fact. we think if the current system collapses, we will end up with some sort of free-banking system naturally. This may not be a proposal to your liking, but it is one that have we have proffered regularly. You wish to prop up the current system apparently. But we do not believe it is sustainable and will end no matter what.

Ms. Brown's emphasis on state-sovereign money is taking us in the wrong direction. We end up empowering the state that has caused such calamity and disaster in the 20th century and now the 21st.

The reason I declined to do this interview is that what you all are arguing against isn't even what I'm proposing.

You've set up a straw man and are proceeding to knock it down, and it's not me. I just did two presentations in the Bay Area in California, in Marin and Sonoma, on how California could save itself from bankruptcy with a state-owned bank.

My power point hasn't yet made it to our Click to view link website, but here's an earlier version, from August 2010, given in Thousand Oaks --

Click to view link

Basically, all I'm saying is that states can't create money but they CAN own banks that create credit on their books. We've given that credit power away to a private banking cartel, and we need to take it back. I'm not even talking about change at the federal level, because I think it's hopeless there. Congress is deadlocked. I'm aiming for state sovereignty.

Reply from The Daily Bell

Thanks for the link.

@ Ramon S

Thanks for your delightful reply to Carl Herman. 'Twas the perfect Christmas gift.

@DB

I think you missed my request at 12/26/2010 1:22:00 AM

to copy my post into this thread. It is my reply to Carl Herman (LA County Nonpartisan Examiner). Once again, the link is here:

Click to view link

I would rather the comments here, as it is not my intent to have participants click through.

@Elias Alias

"While your topic is far above my humble head, as I am but a lowly high-school graduate..."

I will suggest you have no need to apologize for this. We see even in this thread that formal education and wisdom have almost nothing to do with each other. Your post was one of the most uplifting and wise in this thread. Your comments demonstrate far more understanding of human nature, economics, and the situation today than some participating in this thread with far more formal education.

Reply from The Daily Bell

More on The Rise of Brownianism at The Daily Bell

@Carl Herman (LA County Nonpartisan Examiner)

Where do I begin...?

Let's count the strikes, shall we? A quick check of all of my questions that you have thus far ignored:

1) How do you believe this proposal would accomplish accountability and full transparency in government?
2) You seem quite skeptical about government power. Why are you such a proponent of it in this case?
3) Could you please provide examples of political integrity in government that would give you confidence in this occasion?
4) Please identify instances where government regulation has worked. Explain this in the context of the last decade in finance and real estate " two of the most regulated industries in the country.
5) If we just change the owner of the printing press, all economic woes will disappear. We can eliminate need from the vocabulary of man. Really, you believe this?
6) I know the reason government actors, and those above them pulling the strings of government actors, have for monopolizing money. What are your reasons?
7) Only competition, proven via profit and loss in a free marketplace has demonstrated the ability to consistently raise man's standard of living. It does so for every other good, why not for money?
8) Then let those 3/5 to 2/3 pay for it. By what right do they have claim on me in order to fulfill their fantasies?

There are at least 8 strikes. So now, I can count higher than you can. Does this qualify me for the position of Federal Reserve Chairman?

Now to your latest post:

Streets and sidewalks? Try this by Walter Block, also an economics professor. I would put him in the 2% camp. Don't let the length scare you. Also, I don't believe this will change your opinion one bit, but then again, I am not writing this for your sake. Click to view link


CH: 'You make an a priori argument against "central planning" and refuse to provide resources you say make your case?

This is two strikes? The easiest softball of the day and your challenge rides on this? Are you really an economics professor? Given all the examples in the history of the 20th century, this burden does not sit on me. Ok, I'm game. Maybe the Soviet Union would be a good start? What about North Korea? East Germany? If you haven't heard of these, or cannot use Google, I can get some links for you.


CH: 'do I understand you correctly that you'll let the poor die on the streets rather than provide them with health care?

I never said what I would personally do, so I don't know how you could understand me correctly or incorrectly. But I know I wouldn't use force to steal from someone else and then call it charity. Your attitude is typical of those who confuse theft with generosity and compassion. It is easy to be generous with someone else's money. It is fallacious to say that one defending his property from a thief is somehow not being charitable.

Yes, you do ignore my questions, again listed above for your ease and comfort. Below is my entire comment on the subject of slavery:

BM: 'Underlying your view is a philosophy that believes slavery is a legitimate way to order society. Try to defend your statements without relying on this fact. It cannot be done. Once you admit that you advocate slavery, try to define with some philosophical consistency those parts of your private life that should be protected from the slaveholder. There is no line other than zero that can be legitimately defended. Now compare the evil that is slavery (your ideal society) with my lack of concern about where I might find a public sidewalk. I will risk the possible lack of a sidewalk.

What I gave you was a problem in logic and deductive reasoning. I made one error in my conclusion. There is another logical conclusion I could have reached about your underlying philosophy besides slavery. It could also be theft. Now, use logic and reason to refute this. You cannot. This was the problem I presented to you in the first place. This should be obvious for an economics professor. You failed gloriously.

CH: 'I count two questions to this point: addressing the "slippery slope" fallacy was one and the other is the paradox of having a structure of government that's transparent when we don't have that today and most cannot imagine it. I addressed both.

No not two questions, and you have addressed neither. I have listed eight above. And this wasn't all of them, and it does not include questions asked by others on this thread.

CH: 'And answer #2 above, please. This is a reality check of your economic philosphy.

Have I even described in any sufficient detail my economic philosophy? Certainly, my economic philosophy does not justify slavery or theft. Does yours?

Your grade is F for this course. Merry Christmas.

Click to view linkernments printing money. Public servants (bureaucrats) making the decisions on what to fund and to what extent. Advisors would be sort, or consulted at least, from places far and wide. Consultancy fees would apply and the business of government would front run all others as the rest of the marketplace will always be waiting for signals to be forthcoming from those government bureaucrats (or advisors ???? just quietly to their friends).

So for me, the same problems as before apply. Forces other than fundamental economic ones distort the market and no amount of government intervention will remove the distortions from it.

I think Brownianism takes as gospel that governments/public institutions, rather than unrestricted common markets, are better at anticipating how economies grow and develop.

With the present hopelessly distorted and stressed financial system that we have I can see how any change in how money is issued and managed might seem to be beneficial. But the system we have at the moment has been shown manifestly to have an architecture designed for anything other than free-market capitalism. So blaming the 'free market' is a furphy (as it doesn't exist yet anywhere in the world that I know of. E-bay may be getting close)

So I say let's see how well public/statist control of issuance of money goes in the free-market of ideas (the Internet), and see if it's a winner or just another idea that can be co-opted to fit in with the Elites plans to continue to dominate and enslave us through the monetary/financial systems of the world.

I have yet to see a government system that is not tainted by politics and thus not to be trusted to give predicted results. Not because they are unrealistic, but rather the stated objectives of government are never the real reasons they do things. Preservation of power through the continuation of the two party system in western type governments the world over would be the real overarching principle employed in top level government decision making, I think. With large international corporations still enjoying the legislative advantages/privileges they already have. More power always accumulating to them both.

Western Australia is a case in point, I think. The State government is fast tracking something along the lines of $170 billion of resource projects for the state and even facilitated the opening of a branch office of the Chinese central bank in the state to help provide the finance. I think the same can be said for the Federal government scheme concerning the National Broadband Network.

Obviously these projects are too large for our country to bankroll without the financial assistance of the very people and organisations that are rewarding themselves while exposing the world to unpayable debts that they basically manufacture as money/credit. A manufactured good that is programmed to return to it's original source at no cost to the bank that made it. In fact we pay for that privilege with interest, plus the debt.

In other words, IMO, we need more than a change in the money system, we need a change in the way we organise ourselves both locally and beyond. Thinking has to evolve and language has to develop to anticipate the communication systems that might just save us from being destroyed by forces that prefer the curtain of representative government to hide behind. Then we might have a chance to wrest back control of our futures from people who have far more power concentrated in their hands than justifiable in a system that now requires the informed consent of all it's citizens.

Can it happen ? The Internet and the worlds population require that it must, I feel. The Elite will just have to pull their heads in and come along for the ride, or they can keep pushing those central bank buttons and keep on achieving the same outcome, ruin for all, in the end.

Maybe Senator Ron Pauls proposed audit of the Fed will put an end to the debate as to who ownes it. What I dont understand is where does the intrest payed to the Fed with our tax dollers go? About 400 billion, half the revenues recieved in taxes goes to pay the intrest on this loan. Where does it go?!

President Lincoln made money to equip an army and win the civil war, there were no federal income taxes at that time. That type of system, although I'm sure not perfect, sounds alot better than the one we have now.

I think its kind of interesting to note that every single Federal Reserve note in the world is somehow, in someway owed to the Federal Reserve. Now thats power!

Elias Alias ... Montana's Oath Keeper's Conference came as news to me and I'm delighted to hear of it!

One thing you might incorporate into your further work toward your State's efforts to recapture her Liberty, is a formal re-situation of your Legislature in original, ordinary State jurisdiction. Sometime in the 1850s to 1860s, which I haven't yet pinned down precisely, all State legislatures have to have removed their operations into federal jurisdiction, as that is the only way for them to circumvent Art. I, Sec. 10's absolute prohibition against making 'any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts'. You see, pursuant to Art. IV, Sec. 3, cl. 2, under exclusively federal jurisdiction, no constitution applies and whatever 'rules and regulations' Congress deems appropriate are perfectly allowable.

Merry Christmas and the best wishes of fortune for your project! It's very, very exciting and encouraging!

David Robertson ...

First off, to categorically disparage 'Jews' in this matter is as pointless and distractive as to generically focus on 'men' or 'Asians'. Had completely uncontrollable events not shaped history, we might as easily have come to connect 'Florentine Mediccis' or Spaniards' as our ultimate oppressors.

Nationalistic or familial lines are mere accidents of history and aside from soap-opera titillations; they are of no real importance at all. Any one of the 'money powers' of the past would likely have brought the world to this circumstance, as I rather ascertain the core factors to be the thoroughly futile ancient practice of unitization of money in the face of population growth demand.

As the popularized definition of 'stupid' goes, those who control money's form continue to do the same thing, expecting a different result somehow. From my analysis I conclude that money can't be nominally fixed in either specie or virtual configuration, because as population slightly exceeds recovery of metals (and resources in the rational spectrum), the nominal value is quickly frustrated. The sooner we abandon that 'tradition', the sooner we'll 'wise up'. In reality, we're best served contemplating ancient Chinese, Greeks and Romans, than Jews.

On visiting the link you provided, I indexed 'bill' but couldn't find mention of the 'two signature bill' to which you earlier alluded. Though I initially suspected the upshot of your question to surround the fact that a 'Real Bill' requires only a single signature of acceptance as opposed to a Loan note requiring two signatories to an agreement; I now rather think Rep. McFadden was speaking of Fed banknotes bearing signatories of Treasury and the Fed.

This is because the greater thrust of his comments had to do with the arrangement of government's positioning in guarantee of banknotes being impossible to realize by the 1930's, given the fixed 'values' of silver and gold. He had also spoken of the immoral practice of the Fed's American banknote liquidation of British and German Bills of Exchange ('Real Bills) in blatant defiance of liquor prohibition statutes on the one hand and concerns for national safety while Germany and Japan were openly belligerents against America's allies on the other.

Of his particular outrage, was that government's part in the liquidation of these Bills of Exchange for Scotch whiskey and munitions was substantiated by taxed American labor, greatly against its own self-interest!

Tester ... "So at this point, the most expedient approach is clearly to call a spade a spade. Massive devalutions are not only the obvious way out; they are the only way out."

The question then arises as to how we can accomplish 'devaluation' of banknote 'money' without wreaking havoc in the lives of innocents and to emerge with the most stable system in its place. It occurred to me that the quandary is simpler than at first meets the eye.

Operationally, banknotes are merely names and numbers entirely disembodied even from the scraps of paper they're printed onto. The fact that they're now wholly ethereal and subject to completely whimsical definition is the cause of difficulty in dealing with them. However any party values them, each is perfectly correct. With absolutely no physical correlation to anything of real substance; literally any interpretation that can garner a modicum of acceptance is equally argued as proper. But, 'because, today I say so' invariably raises the hackles of children ... to say nothing of adults ... when precious time expended from one's private interests and necessities hang in the balance, infinite conflict is unavoidable. The solution is to re-connect the numbers with a specific real thing. The objective is to appropriately 'harden' banknotes, so that whatever one's contentions of 'value' in their regard, they'll at least have ascertainable bases in reality.

Since current banknotes all began their descent into their present morass as representations of specific weights of physical metals that still bear a proportionate residual relationship to them, we can simply revert to those residual physical expressions.

Given widely accepted depreciation figures of 97%, in the case of American banknotes, the residual is 10 grams of copper or 3/100s of its silver ratio in 1913. That would leave all the present outward numerical relationships undisturbed, so that anyone in possession of 100 or a hundred million banknote units will still have exactly the same in 'Coppers' Whatever costs 15 banknotes, would then cost 15 'Coppers'. Obviously, the urgency to find a valid ratio to silver and gold would present itself and ... as they say ... we'll be 'off to the races'. Fortunately, grain for grain, copper still trades in a 1:100 ratio to silver.

Based on present existing inventories, the conversion would take about 75% of stock but that could be significantly ameliorated by free coinage of publicly supplied scrap.

There are myriad other positive aspects to the notion, but for brevity, I'll leave those to the reader's insight.

@Carl Herman,

college-level economics professor (i.e. LA County high school teacher)

What in the world is wrong with you?

Poor people have the following options for help instead of dying on the street:

1) themselves (never occurred to you, did it?)
2) family
3) friends
4) local community organizations
5) religious organizations
6) private charity

Why do you put stealing a large % of my productive effort to supposedly "care" for poor people (most of which goes to the bureaucratic machine anyway) at the top of that list? And if you really cared for poor people, why don't you insist that they first rely on themselves to live in this challenging world? It's a concept called "personal responsibility".

I'm begging you, please stop teaching your "economics" to impressionable young minds. Maybe there is an opening at your school in the Phys Ed dept..

@Arch Crawford

I do believe it's true. I have in my safe an example of both the Kennedy $5.00 bill and the Kennedy $2.00 bill. The seal of the U.S. Treasury is on each of them. You may obtain examples of them at reputable coin-shops in most cities. (I must refuse to sell you mine, as they seem, in their still dark silence upon a shelf in my safe, like two little symbols of Gresham's law.)

I think that history may reveal that all U.S. Presidents who were assassinated, and those who suffered failed attempts at assassination, were indeed mucking about with the central bank of their day. Odd, that.

To DB and your busy elves, Merry Christmas; and thank you for this amazing article and comment thread. As you read the following I trust you'll grasp why I have been captivated by your article and its discussion.

While your topic is far above my humble head, as I am a but a lowly high-school graduate and have duly been overwhelmed by the language, ideation, and argumentative/philosophical intent lending info-overload to my mind as I waded through this entire comment thread, I yet would venture a perhaps tangential (at least, hopefully, a peripheral) item of interest regarding sound money ' with a twist! ;)

I would share in passing with you some news from Montana. On December 18, 2010, at Helena, Montana, which is our State capitol, an organization called Oath Keepers hosted a forum/conference of more than 200 souls representing various liberty-leadership organizations from around the State. Included in the audience and among the line-up of speakers were various Montana legislators and some other State and/or County officials, including one or two County Sheriffs, a County Commissioner and a City Commissioner.

The conference was peopled by entrepreneurial community leaders, businessmen, peace officers, firefighters, and legislators. The purpose of the conference was to gain consensus from across a wide and diverse spectrum of political and economic perspectives which were brought to focus on three primary objectives, and said objectives would be distributed back outwardly across the State as the leaders returned from the conference to their respective homes to communicate our work to their constituents, clients, groups and communities.

The three topics:

*Sound money ' based on silver and gold as an alternative monetary system for each County in Montana;

*Preparedness ' to educate our citizens on the ground in Montana in methods by which they may help each other ride out the coming economic failure;

*The reinstitution of the lawful Constitutional militia in every County in Montana.

Prior to inviting these gentlemen and ladies to attend this conference, I invited each attendee to partake of Dr. Edwin Vieira's amazing documentary film, "The Purse And The Sword".

Click to view link

This conference established committees for drafting proposed legislation to establish a Constitutionally-mandated alternative sound money bill and/or to bolster the sound money bill already drawn up by, and which will be introduced into the legislature by, Montana Representative Bob Wagner; and for re-instituting Montana's lawful militia at the County and State level. These bills will be introduced into the coming legislative session, and support for the bills will be enhanced by Oath Keepers, which remains a non-partisan, non-denominational, and non-discriminatory organization devoted to the Oath and the document which requires that Oath.

Please note that the Oath Keepers umbrella carries the support of a very wide array of various liberty-minded groups, organizations, and legislators, many of whom do not customarily work shoulder to shoulder with such a diverse collection of groups. To illustrate: Sample participants included the 10th Amendment Center, the Montana Policy Institute, Celebrating Conservatism, the John Birch Society, Campaign For Liberty, various Tea Party groups, End The Fed, Citizens for 9/11 Truth, 9/12 Project, Montana Conservative Alliance, Education To Freedom, We The People Foundation For Constitutional Education, the Fully Informed Jury Association, and many others.
I mention this because attendance by all reveals the general trust in Montana's liberty movement for Oath Keepers as an organization, and I am proud of that fact. Never have so many different organizations come together from across the State to deal with creation of proposed new bills on such radical measures as creating a precious-metals-based State-wide alternate money system and a State-wide revitalization of the Constitutional militia in every county.

We will use our outreach capacity across the State to fan the fires of support for these bills. We think that this conference represents the first effort by any State to enact the wisdom of Dr. Vieira regarding both sound money and the lawful militia in tandem. As Gary Marbut, author of Montana's "Firearms Freedom Act of 2009" (and speaker at this conference) has shown, many State legislatures keep an eye on whatever Montana is up to. Aside from a powerful presentation by Mr. Marbut and Representatives Joel Boniek, Michael More, Bob Wagner, and County Commissioner Dan Happel and others, Stewart Rhodes presided at this conference. Our featured speech for the day's wrap-up presentation was given by U.S. Constitution Party's 2008 Presidential candidate Dr. Chuck Baldwin, who has recently moved to Montana and announced, in his words, "Montana is the tip of the spear in the fight for freedom".

Click to view link

I have spent nearly four hours of my Christmas studying the amazing article and comments above. I have so much to learn, and you've given me much insight here. I hope that news of last week-end's conference in Montana could substitute as my gift to the elves, in hopes that in some way it may come to be seen as relevant to the above discussion. I mean, here you have a State about to introduce some remarkable bills for passage into law. My only wish is that in my next life I may possess a better mentality, that I can come to understand the intricacies, nuances, ins-and-outs, implications, and "truth" of all I've read by Anthony Wile and your remarkable readers. To allay my ignorance, I pray for Dr. Vieira's voluntary guidance as Montana takes this bold stand. Bests to DB and the elves; Merry Christmas; please pray for Montana.

Salute!

@Pat Fields:

The links I have given in my previous posts are working. However there are characters that attach themselves to the end of the URL. If you delete these characters the link works. The characters are: %3Cbr

@Pat Fields:

Here is the speech on the activities of the Fed that Louis McFadden made to Congress in 1934:

Click to view link~becraft/mcfadden.html

I believe it is a thorough expose of the shenanigans of the international bankers. There are a lot of references I do not quite understand since I believe the ways the fraud is carried out have changed over time but the principle remains the same. As you probably know he died soon after making this speech. Foul play was suspected. It is interesting to me that there was no reticence at that time about pointing the finger at the patent influence of the Jews in international banking. Here is what was said:


"Commenting on Former Congressman Louis T. McFaddens's "heart-failure sudden-death" on Oct. 3, 1936, after a "dose" of "intestinal flu," "Pelley's Weekly" of Oct. 14 said:


Now that this sterling American patriot has made the Passing, it can be revealed that not long after his public utterance against the encroaching powers of Judah, it became known among his intimates that he had suffered two attacks against his life. The first attack came in the form of two revolver shots fired at him from ambush as he was alighting from a cab in front of one of the Capital hotels. Fortunately both shots missed him, the bullets burying themselves in the structure of the cab.
"He became violently ill after partaking of food at a political banquet at Washington. His life was only saved from what was subsequently announced as a poisoning by the presence of a physician friend at the banquet, who at once procured a stomach pump and subjected the Congressman to emergency treatment."

Mr. Danison, the current system is fundamentally flawed. No matter how much you tweak it it will still end in disaster. The basic premise of your ideas is the same as the current system, which is there isn't enough money floating around. Money isn't what drives an economy – it's production. The current system has tried everything you are proposing except on a larger scale and it has failed miserably. We haven't even felt the full effect of their misguided stewardship. Once this phony system collapses you would risk everything on the same flawed system but just tweaked a little bit and that is suppose to inspire me with confidence?

Another flawed principle of Brownianism is the idea that a few smart people can out think the market by knowing just how much money the economy needs or at what interest rate is needed to stimulate an economy. The current smart people are doing the same thing and they've been tweaking it since 1913. Let's see your options to tweaking are either raising or lowering interest rates. I think it's been done. Next please!