Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
frizzers

Why Gold Is The Currency Of The Free And Idle

Recommended Posts

Hi Lowrent,

I meant to say thank you. I used the GBShaw quote from your signature in my essay. I found it thanks to your sig. I would have used the Stamp one too, but there is some doubt as to whether he actually said it or whether it was attributed.

It's a bit like like that great quote that Napoleon is said to have said, 'Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained as incompetence'. But did he actually say it? If so when and where?

Anyway - good sig

CC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Lowrent,

I meant to say thank you. I used the GBShaw quote from your signature in my essay. I found it thanks to your sig. I would have used the Stamp one too, but there is some doubt as to whether he actually said it or whether it was attributed.

It's a bit like like that great quote that Napoleon is said to have said, 'Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained as incompetence'. But did he actually say it? If so when and where?

Anyway - good sig

CC

 

no probs

 

did he say it when speaking at the University of Texas in 1927

 

http://moneymyths.org.uk/episode2.html

 

some more quotes by bankers

 

Reginald McKenna, Chairman of the Board of the Midland Bank, and former Chancellor of the Exchequer, said: “I am afraid that the ordinary citizen will not like to be told that banks can and do create money...And they who control the credit of the nation direct the policy of Governments and hold in the hollow of their hands the destiny of the people”.

 

As Robert Hemphill, one-time Credit Manager of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta said: “If all the bank loans were paid, no one could have a bank deposit, and there would not be a dollar of coin or currency in circulation. This is a staggering thought. We are completely dependent on the commercial banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash, or credit. If the banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system. When one gets a complete grasp of the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless situation is almost incredible -- but there it is.”

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is that your writing or did you get it from somewhere else?

The reason I ask is that I collect great quotes, and have added that one, but wish to attribute it correctly :D

 

I like it very much.

 

the blue and red bit is Ayn Rand.

 

Rand has lot's of great quotes. here's another:

 

When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion - when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing - when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors - when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you - when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice - you may know that your society is doomed.

 

edit: maybe you should start a quotes thread for one or two sentence quotes that manage to hit the nail on the head?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the blue and red bit is Ayn Rand.

 

Rand has lot's of great quotes. here's another:

 

 

 

edit: maybe you should start a quotes thread for one or two sentence quotes that manage to hit the nail on the head?

 

Thanks :D

 

(The "New Topic" button is available to anyone ;):D )

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This chap who runs the FKN News [spoof of BBC] knows exactly about the slavery and debt monetary system.

 

He produces a weekly show on youtube. Theres over 100 shows over the last 2-3 years.

 

From:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was not impressed enough to listen to more than about half of it. There were too many canards. The one suggesting that the US invaded Iraq to stop Saddam Hussein selling oil in Euros.... why do people keep repeating that? If SH did that it would be his loss because buyers would demand a discount to cover the cost of converting dollars to Euros. Iraq never sold enough oil to call the shots.

 

Then the assertion about the gold standard preventing wars. Well, it did not prevent the Napoleonic Wars. Britain came off the gold standard to pay for the war and then struggled for years afterwards to get back on, eventually managing it for the rest of the century and on to 1914, when she came off to finance WW1. This time the Brits just could not get onto the gold standard again afterwards, and abandoned it I think in the early 1930s after defaulting on US debt repayments. Nuclear power stopped major wars, at least so far. Europe was at war repeatedly in the C19th.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Both excellent - do you have dates for either?

 

 

"I am afraid the ordinary citizen will not like to be told that the banks can and do create money. And they who control the credit of the nation direct the policy of Governments and hold in the hollow of their hand the destiny of the people." Reginald McKenna, as Chairman of the Midland Bank, addressing stockholders in 1924.

 

 

and book published in 1935?

http://silverstockreport.com/email/Godly_Prosperity.html

Robert Hemphill was the Credit Manager of the Federal Reserve Bank in Atlanta. In the foreword to a book by Irving Fisher, entitled 100% Money, Hemphill said this:

 

If all the bank loans were paid, no one could have a bank deposit, and there would not be a dollar of coin or currency in circulation. This is a staggering thought. We are completely dependent on the commercial banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash, or credit. If the banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system. When one gets a complete grasp of the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless situation is almost incredible -- but there it is.

 

That was an interestingly terrifying description of the problem of paper money; but no solution is presented; in fact, he fears that no solution is possible. The solution must have eluded Robert Hemphill, who did, in fact, help to inspire me to search for a solution when I read another of his famous quotes on money: (and I quote this at my homepage).

 

"Money is the most important subject intellectual persons can investigate and reflect upon. It is so important that our present civilization may collapse unless it is widely understood and its defects remedied very soon."

--Robert H. Hemphill, former credit manager, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was not impressed enough to listen to more than about half of it. There were too many canards. The one suggesting that the US invaded Iraq to stop Saddam Hussein selling oil in Euros.... why do people keep repeating that? If SH did that it would be his loss because buyers would demand a discount to cover the cost of converting dollars to Euros. Iraq never sold enough oil to call the shots.

 

Then the assertion about the gold standard preventing wars. Well, it did not prevent the Napoleonic Wars. Britain came off the gold standard to pay for the war and then struggled for years afterwards to get back on, eventually managing it for the rest of the century and on to 1914, when she came off to finance WW1. This time the Brits just could not get onto the gold standard again afterwards, and abandoned it I think in the early 1930s after defaulting on US debt repayments. Nuclear power stopped major wars, at least so far. Europe was at war repeatedly in the C19th.

i think a good case can be argued that wars are less likely

 

also if people understood who benefits from wars and who pays for them they could refuse to accept the removal of the gold standard and therefore reduce the chance and cost of wars

 

who financed both sides of the napoleonic wars

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not suggested that a gold standard prevents wars. So why are you suggesting it was?

 

It says if gold was money - not paper or gold standard, gold itself - if there is no fractional reserve banking, and govts do not have the ability to issue currency, then wars on the SCALE of WW1 could never have happened.

 

Then you say the English came off the gold standard to pay for the Nap wars and then struggled to get back on. That's just the point. If gold was money they could not have even funded the Nap war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is not suggested that a gold standard prevents wars. So why are you suggesting it was?

 

It says if gold was money - not paper or gold standard, gold itself - if there is no fractional reserve banking, and govts do not have the ability to issue currency, then wars on the SCALE of WW1 could never have happened.

 

Then say the English came off the gold standard to pay for the Nap wars and then struggled to get back on. That's just the point. If gold was money they could not have even funded that war.

 

But this sounds like a theory. Who is to enforce this gold money? If i lend you 1000 gold then assuming you are of good character i now have a note that says i lent you, a person of good character who is known to other people in the community 1000 gold. Because you are of good character and lets say i took security of some land you have when i lend that gold i now have a document secured to your land associated with the loan. Effectively what i now have is a valueable tradeable document which is more or less money. I can go to other people and say i want to buy that stuff and i have here this valueable document associated with that man of good character is that something you will trade with me?

 

By what means is a system to be produced that says my actions are illegal and that i am prevented from lending you my gold?

 

Who is to be the state here that says that lending of gold is punishable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't really understand your point. The system of credit you describe seems fine. Couldn't facilitate of war of WW1 proportions though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't really understand your point. The system of credit you describe seems fine. Couldn't facilitate of war of WW1 proportions though.

 

You are now agreeing with me that my paper money seems fine.

 

My point was that it seems unreasonable to theorise about a world without paper money because by what method will you prevent paper money from circulating?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if more people understood the issue then the poeple would regulate it

 

Seems unlikely to me:

 

1. The people want to have access to finance

 

2. People like me cannot see that fractional reserve is some kind of evil force to enslave the masses.

 

3. The issue to my way of thinking about it has been lack of regulation. Why has there been lack of regulation? Partly it is because of anarchic type ideas that laizzez faire capitalism is the best way of organising a market. Prior to 1984 for example it was very very difficult to borrow money for certain property projects in the UK. Then came deregulation and American banks willing to lend on a valuation only - regardless of the condition of the property and the ability to sell it.

 

As i see it what we need is less government and simple effective regulation. China for example regularly alters their required reserve ratios to force banks to lend less money, whereas the inflation targeting model enables people to chase assets higher because they benefit from inflation and nobody regulates their ability to lend other than via price. That model has been well and truelly shown to be broken but i still think inflation targeting with regulated lending could be a workable system.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seems unlikely to me:

 

1. The people want to have access to finance

 

2. People like me cannot see that fractional reserve is some kind of evil force to enslave the masses.

 

3. The issue to my way of thinking about it has been lack of regulation. Why has there been lack of regulation? Partly it is because of anarchic type ideas that laizzez faire capitalism is the best way of organising a market. Prior to 1984 for example it was very very difficult to borrow money for certain property projects in the UK. Then came deregulation and American banks willing to lend on a valuation only - regardless of the condition of the property and the ability to sell it.

 

As i see it what we need is less government and simple effective regulation. China for example regularly alters their required reserve ratios to force banks to lend less money, whereas the inflation targeting model enables people to chase assets higher because they benefit from inflation and nobody regulates their ability to lend other than via price. That model has been well and truelly shown to be broken but i still think inflation targeting with regulated lending could be a workable system.

 

as i have said before let the free market take care of the banks who want to speculate with FRB (without the central banks support)

 

regulation doesn't work - never has and never will - although i do admit you can have different levels of competence by regulators

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
as i have said before let the free market take care of the banks who want to speculate with FRB (without the central banks support)

 

regulation doesn't work - never has and never will - although i do admit you can have different levels of competence by regulators

 

Free markets are anarchic. In anarchy people dont need to borrow to get what they want they just take it. And if they cant take it they hope to destroy what the other person possesses.

 

I think also that in anarchy the worlds population would fall back. But is the nature of anarchy that strongmen emerge who become the local war lords. They then administer and police their areas.

 

So from my point of view you are promoting a catastrophic deflationary collapse where you might believe you can profit from that chaos. On the other hand another person might think they can just take whatever you accumulate so i dont see it as much of an investment strategy so far. But maybe i dont understand what you have in mind?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Free markets are anarchic. In anarchy people dont need to borrow to get what they want they just take it. And if they cant take it they hope to destroy what the other person possesses.

 

I think also that in anarchy the worlds population would fall back. But is the nature of anarchy that strongmen emerge who become the local war lords. They then administer and police their areas.

 

So from my point of view you are promoting a catastrophic deflationary collapse where you might believe you can profit from that chaos. On the other hand another person might think they can just take whatever you accumulate so i dont see it as much of an investment strategy so far. But maybe i dont understand what you have in mind?

why are free markets anarchic

 

if i go to a market and want to buy someones bananas for a price both I and the seller are both prepared to accept without the rules of how straight they are, what colour they are, whether they are priced in lb's or kg, whether he/she has complied with health and safety legislation, paid his business protection money (business rates) and his government protection money (taxes). Anarchy?

 

who are the strong men now

 

governments and the bankers

 

when did i say i was promoting a catastrophic deflationary collapse - tis not me who created currency out of thin air and caused the debt bubble (Greenspan and Bernanke are more to blame than I)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
why are free markets anarchic

 

if i go to a market and want to buy someones bananas for a price both I and the seller are both prepared to accept without the rules of how straight they are, what colour they are, whether they are priced in lb's or kg, whether he/she has complied with health and safety legislation, paid his business protection money (business rates) and his government protection money (taxes). Anarchy?

 

who are the strong men now

 

governments and the bankers

 

when did i say i was promoting a catastrophic deflationary collapse - tis not me who created currency out of thin air and caused the debt bubble (Greenspan and Bernanke are more to blame than I)

 

Todays reality has aspects of my kind of anarchy already as you point out. I am then wondering why you think that this thing you are considering called 'free markets' (which to me seems like a never to be achieved theoretical consideration simply because reality and history tells us strongmen are always going to be present) is going to be better?

 

Because i dont see it as being better, the kind of free for all that i think would follow on from a removal of current systems will lead to a deflationary collapse. To my way of thinking by promoting free markets you are promoting a deflationary collapse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Todays reality has aspects of my kind of anarchy already as you point out. I am then wondering why you think that this thing you are considering called 'free markets' (which to me seems like a never to be achieved theoretical consideration simply because reality and history tells us strongmen are always going to be present) is going to be better?

 

Because i dont see it as being better, the kind of free for all that i think would follow on from a removal of current systems will lead to a deflationary collapse. To my way of thinking by promoting free markets you are promoting a deflationary collapse.

i am promoting a more honest and more stable monetary system whereby the power of bankers to profit from expanding and contracting the currency is vastly reduced and the hidden tax of inflation, so loved by governments, is no more.

 

free markets may never be achieved

 

limited government and freeer markets can be

 

and stop saying what i am or am not saying

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Free markets are anarchic. In anarchy people dont need to borrow to get what they want they just take it. And if they cant take it they hope to destroy what the other person possesses.

 

In anarchy people behave because responsibility is shifted from the state to the individual. Infiinitely more crime - and a crime on a greater scale - have been committed in the name of order, than the name of disorder. You don't seem to get the main thrust of the argument which is that we have to take the power to issue currency away from the state. It doesn't matter what gets used as money - anything can and should be money, even paper promises and credit - as long as the State doesn't have the power to issue promises and the free market ie individuals are free to choose what they accept as payment. Promises issued on a definite asset such as you describe would be acceptable to some. FRB doesn't work like that. But the chances are in a free market environment the money that works best is gold and other metals

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i am promoting a more honest and more stable monetary system whereby the power of bankers to profit from expanding and contracting the currency is vastly reduced and the hidden tax of inflation, so loved by governments, is no more.

 

free markets may never be achieved

 

limited government and freeer markets can be

 

and stop saying what i am or am not saying

 

A single bank operating in a wilderness type situation far from lines of credit has to go to enormous care to ensure that it manages lending in a way that can keep the bank operating profitably.

 

Therefore without governments bankers dont have much power over the economy. In a UK or USA type system the private banks cooperate with the government to expand or contract the economy.

 

And I remember when i was a student and the local insurance rep came around to see me and said i should consider buying a house to protect myself from inflation.....i was only 21 so did not understand what he meant. But by 1983 i was already there expecting inflation to devalue my mortgage.

 

So from my point of view it is not governments and bankers who love these things. The fact there has just been an enormous housing bubble shows that people love the idea too.

 

So in your alternate system it seems to me that you need to have a group of people who say what you can and cant do and that is not a free market.

 

In a free market i am entitled to say what you are or are not saying or are you going to regulate that out of existance too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×