FYI....Why did Congress give their authority to foreigners? Why do we continue to allow this??
[url]http://www.rense.com/general24/whocontrolsFED.htm[/url]
Who Controls The Federal Reserve System?
By Victor Thorn
5-9-2

Now that we know the Federal Reserve is a privately owned, for-profit
corporation, a natural question would be: who OWNS this company? Peter
Kershaw provides the answer in "Economic Solutions" where he lists the
ten primary shareholders in the Federal Reserve banking system.
 
1) The Rothschild Family - London 2) The Rothschild Family - Berlin 3)
The Lazard Brothers - Paris 4) Israel Seiff - Italy 5) Kuhn-Loeb Company
- Germany 6) The Warburgs - Amsterdam 7) The Warburgs - Hamburg 8) Lehman
Brothers - New York 9) Goldman & Sachs - New York 10) The Rockefeller
Family - New York
 
Now I don't know about you, but something is terribly wrong with this
situation. Namely, don't we live in AMERICA? If so, why are seven of the
top ten stockholders located in FOREIGN countries? That's 70%! To further
convey how screwed-up this system is, Jim Marrs provides the following
data in his phenomenal book, "Rule By Secrecy." He says that the Federal
Reserve Bank of New York, which undeniably controls the other eleven
Federal Reserve branches, is essentially controlled by two financial
institutions:
 
1) Chase-Manhattan (controlled by the Rockefellers) - 6,389,445 shares -
32.3%
2) Citbank - 4,051,851 shares - 20.5%
 
Thus, these two entities control nearly 53% of the New York Federal
Reserve Bank. Doesn't that boggle your mind? Now, considering how many
trillions of dollars are involved here, and how the bankers are WAY above
our "selected" officials in Washington, D.C., do you think the
above-listed banks and families have an inordinate amount of say-so in
how our country is being run? The answer is blindingly apparent.
 
Where does the money come from?
 
We all know that the Federal Reserve CORPORATION prints money - then
loans it, at interest, to our government. But wait until you see what a
total scam this process is. But before we get to the meat of this issue,
let's remember one thing about the very essence of banking - primarily
that money should have some type of standard upon which its value is
based. In the case of America, we operate on what is called a "gold
standard" (i.e. our money is backed by gold).
 
So, with that in mind, let's look at how money is actually created, and
at what cost. If the Federal Reserve wants to print 1,000 one-hundred
($100) bills, their total cost for ink, paper, plates, labor, etc. would
be approximately $23.00 (according to Davvy Kidd in "Why A Bankrupt
America"). Now, if you do the math, the total cost of 10,000 bills would
be $230.00 ($.023 x 10,000). But, and here's the catch - 10,000 $100
bills equals $1,000,000! So, the Federal Reserve can "create" a million
dollars, then LEND it to the U.S. Government (with interest) for a total
cost of $230.00! That's not a bad deal, huh!
 

The banking industry calls this process "seignorage." I call it outright
THEFT. Why? Well, regardless of the immense profit margin ($1,000,000 for
$230), plus the huge interest payments, our government then needs to
STEAL the American people's money to payoff their debts via a Mob-like
agency called the IRS. So the bankers steal from the government, then the
government turns around and steals from the people. I'm no genius, but
who do you think is getting screwed in this process? US - the people at
the bottom rung of the ladder.
What's worse is that - now catch your breath - there's NO MORE gold left
in Fort Knox! It's all gone. In other words, the GOLD STANDARD that our
financial system was based upon is now an illusion. We can't convert our
money into gold --- only other currency. The entire underlying basis for
our money is now a lie - a sham. The Federal Reserve has become so
arrogant that they've become a literal MONEY MAKING MACHINE, creating
currency out of thin air! So that's where the Fed gets their money - they
literally make it, then lend it to us so they can make even MORE money
off of it.
 
Money As A Religion
 
The above-detailed process has become so ridiculous that William Grieder,
former assistant managing editor of the Washington Post, wrote a book in
1987 entitled, "Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal Reserve Runs the
Country" that details how the Controllers have conditioned us to accept
this absurd situation.
 
"To modern minds," he writes, "it seemed bizarre to think of the Federal
Reserve as a religious institution. Yet the conspiracy theorists, in
their own demented way, were on to something real and significant. The
Fed did also function in the realm of religion. Its mysterious powers of
money creation, inherited from priestly forebears, shielded a complex
bundle of social and psychological meanings. With its own form of secret
incantation, the Federal Reserve presided over awesome social ritual,
transactions so powerful and frightening they seemed to lie beyond common
understanding."
 
Mr. Grieder continues, "Above all, money was a function of faith. It
required implicit and universal social consent that was indeed
mysterious. To create money and use it, each one must believe, and
everyone must believe. Only then did worthless pieces of paper take on
value."
 

Do you get it? MONEY is an ILLUSION! Why? Because the gold standard upon
which our money is supposed to be based has been eliminated. There's no
more gold in Fort Knox. It's all GONE! Now, money really IS only paper!!!
In the past, money was supposed to represent something of tangible value.
Now it's simply paper!
 
Taken one step further, many of us don't even use paper money any more!
Why? Well, here's a scenario. Many places of employment directly deposit
their employee's paychecks into the bank. Once the money is there, when
bill time comes around, the person in question can write out a stack of
checks to pay them. Plus, when they need gasoline they use a credit card;
and groceries a debit card. If this person goes out for dinner on Friday
night, they can charge the tab on their diner's card. But what about the
tip? They simply scribble in the amount at the bottom of the check. So
far, the person hasn't spent a single dollar bill. Plus, if you bring
electronic banking into the picture, we've virtually eliminated the use
for money. And, God forbid, what happens when encoded microchips are
implanted into the backs of our hand?
 
In essence, money has become nothing more than an illusion - an
electronic figure or amount on a computer screen. That's it! As time goes
on, we have an increasing tendency toward being sucked into this Wizard
of Oz vortex of unreality. Think about it. Americans as a whole are
carrying more personal debt than in any other time in history. Plus our
government keeps going further and further into the hole, with no hope of
ever crawling out. But we have less and less actual MONEY! We're being
enslaved by the debt of electronic blips on a computer screen! And 70% of
the banks that control this debt via the Federal Reserve exist in foreign
countries! What in God's name is going on? As author William Bramley
says, "The result of this whole system is MASSIVE debt at every level of
society."
 
We're getting screwed in a sickening way, folks, and the people doing it
are demented magician-priests that use the ILLUSION of money as their
control device. And I hate to say it, but if we allow things to keep
going as they are, the situation will only get worse. Our only hope ...
ONLY HOPE ... is to immediately take drastic action and remedy this
crime.
 
(to be continued)
[url]http://www.victorthorn.com/babel/issue55/federalreserve5[/url]







 

Didn't you once post something about all lawyers in the U.S. being secret agents of the Queen?

"...ILLUSION of money as their control device..."


This sounds oddly like the same stuff the kid that was blowing up mailboxes was coming up with.

I don't like the government too much but I'd have to say you're paranoid. You don't know what you're talking about and just took a BS article at its face value. The Federal Reserve system is not controlled by foreigners. It's the backbone of the central banking system of the United States. All industrialized countries have something like this. It's called modern macroeconomics. Unlike some paranoid BS hicks, I actually think the Fed does its job. Alan Greenspan is a very competent chairman and he's done a great job in holding back inflation and regulating money supply for the last decade.

Gold standard will kill our economy. What are you, living in the 1870s? Our money is fiat, meaning it's worth what we believe it's worth. It has no intrinsic value. But this also makes it easier to regulate. The Fed doens't have to print money to make money, they simply just buy or sell US government securities to control the amount of money in the economy. They also set discount interest rates and reserve ratios. Learn some economics before you go on a rant.

Call me a conspisary theorst but this a valid conception IMO. Money is the only way to pay TAXES.The rich people of the world run the world.........[url]www.bildiberg.org[/url]?Why would rich people(bush) who make on paper 900,000(2000taxreturn) a year take a job paying 500,000 = Pres BUSH? theres got to be a payoff somewhere.This government is a house of cards like enron........WHAT DO THEY have to back up the currency except the "FAITH" in the federal government.

[url]http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_99/hannigan092099.html[/url]

uh, the federal reserve tries to combat inflation. What's with all this paranoia? None of what you described is any mystery, anyone who've studied macroeconomics know about it. Most people are just not as alarmed as you are. What's wrong with fractional reserve banking? Ok course you make money of of thin air, because money is like the lubricant. BTW, in the story you linked to about Fabian, the examples don't apn out in the real world. (the fear scenerios). First of all, it's highly unlikely that everyone will demand their money at the same time. Which is what makes fractional reserve banking possible. Second, it's unlikely that all loans will be called at the same time. Which means that it's ok to pay back 105 dollars for every 100 dollars borrowed. Because as soon as this money goes back to the bank, it will get lent out again and back in circulation. The frequency at which this occurs is called the velocity of money.

The scenerio that was decsribed about people not being able to pay their loans is what we get in a financial panic. When everyone has to pay but there isn't enough money to go around. Someone will be caught. This isn't just present in the banking system. Consider the stock market. If two people bought a stock, person A bought 5 shares @10, and person B bought 5 shares @20. Since the price is now 20, the 10 shares have a total market capitalization of 200. However since only 150 was put in, that means the extra 50 is excess value if this is a closed system (meaning no one else will buy in at a higher price). If everyone dumps their stock portfolios at the same time, we'll have a disaster just like if everyone withdraws their savings at the same time.

The problem with gold is that it's not the standard currency. It's value varies in relation to the dollar. So if you pay me with gold, I'd have to charge you more for something because gold is considered a less liquid asset than cash. You have to pay me more to compensate me for the loss of liquidity.

No, the Rederal Reserve [B]creates[/B] inflation via printing of money.  Then, they "correct" for it after they see the economy has adjusted its prices based on the inflated fake currency by F'ing you in the rear end by raising their interest rates.  Nice huh.



Maybe you should study it again.



Fractional banking isn't the issue.  I thought the issue was our money is not worth the toilet paper I wipe my crack with, and is not controlled by our government but by private corporations.  Unless I am MISSING something?

BTW, for those of you who think that our money is worthless because it's only backed by faith in the federal government. The whole concept of money relies on trust and faith. You accept something that's intrisically worthless on faith that you can exchange it for something that you want in return for your services. That is how money works. The whole financial system is built on trust. If you dont' trust your banker to repay your money, then who'd deposit money? If you don't trust your broker to give you unbiased advice, then who'd invest in public equity? Similarly, if you don't trust the currency, then who can buy anything?

None of this stuff is a mystery, it's just that most people don't see it in as alarming a light as you do. We place our trust in government to protect our lives and properties. That includes the money supply which btw, we obvious can't individually control. In this role the government can definitely do a better job than the individual can for himself.

I would like to know who now owns all the useless Gold that once was stashed at Fort Knox.


The reason we pay Federal income tax and always will is to guarantee these bastards get paid their interest.

are you one of those people who thinks that a static money supply is the only responsible thing? I can't believe I'm having this debate, I mean I feel like I just got transported into the 1870s.

Yes, our current system of monetary regulation definitely have plenty of room for abuse. But inflation isn't solely caused by just increasing the money supply. The money supply have to be adjusted for the output and activity of the economy. Supply limited currencies like precious metal will retain their absolute value, but their inelastic supply will have a hard time adjusting to chaning economic output.

If I were to think along your lines, then I'd want my money to be backed in bullets. They certainly will have more intrinsic value than gold when SHTF and we lose faith in our government and therefore our currency the dollar.

Gold in and of itself is inherently worthless except for its use in electronics.  It has worth because WE THINK IT LOOKS PRETTY.  No other reason.  I don't see where the gold standard makes any more sense than the monetary system we have now.
BTW, Alan Greenspan is a disciple of Ayn Rand and is libertarian in philosophy, hardly someone who would be involved in a scheme to allow the rich to rule the world.

well the main difference is that the supply of gold is relatively inelastic compared to the supply of our faith in government. So the money supply based on gold can't be expanded as quickly as a money supply based on faith in government. That's the basis for the gold backed currency argument. I however disagree since it'd be impratical to tie our money supply to something so inelastic. As William Jennings Bryant said in his Cross of Gold speech, we shouldn't tie our currency to gold.

jz, my main point in the post, is that Congress has abdicated it's Constitutional mandate (Art.1,Sec.8,Cl.5), to coin money and set it's value.(Why didn't the founders have private foreign bankers do it instead? Were they "paranoid"?) We have never even had Congressional hearings on  Federal Reserve oversight. Coming from a govt. education system, it is understandable that you have no problem that our monetary system is owned and controlled by foreign banking interests. "He who controls Education and Money, controls the Nation"... It amazes me that you seem to believe that International banking house's have the best interests of American citizens in their minds when adjusting money supply, or setting interest rates! Did they also teach you in school why most of our founding fathers were DEAD SET AGAINST a national bank? Is it just coincidence that these same bankers sent Lenin to Moscow with some 12 million to fund his revolution? Did you learn all that stuff in your govt. school too? Did they teach you the circumstances of how this system was foisted on US in 1913? (next came the IRS) Do you know that for 120 years or so American patriots fought the establishment of such a system? Do you know why?? Were they "just paranoid b.s. hicks"? At least I'm in good company............

No Rik, it has value because it is RARE! Platinum is more rare, and thus more valuable.

Check your own logic, liberty.  You are sadly mistaken.

If gold looked like coal and smelled like garbage and was the most rare substance on earth, it still wouldn't be worth a damned cent if it wasn't useful for something.

Gold's only true value lies in the fact that it is a malleable metal that looks attractive, conducts electricity well, and doesn't tarnish easily.  The fact that it is rare tends to compound it's value, but the only thing that makes it have value at all is the fact that it is useful.

Go ahead, buy bags of gold and bury them in the ground if it makes you happy and safe.  But understand you can't eat gold, nor will it keep you warm UNLESS someone else wants to trade with you.  100 pounds of gold wouldn't buy your life in a true SHTF situation.  

Gold is valuable because as a medium of exchange, its supply cannot be readily expanded at will--precisely why bankers and governments do not like it.

Alpha, I don't think any of my posts have advocated collecting or holding gold. My point is the Unconstitutional foreign control of our medium of exchange. Personally, I collect Arms, ammo, food, and toilet paper, i.e. commodities.[:D]

I wouldn't trust any politician with the money supply. If you think the politicians have your best interests in mind think again. Political involvement in economic matters are inevitably shortsighted and disasterous.

In addition to being long lasting, uniform, and varifiably genuine, a medium of exchange in modern society also need to have high liquidity. The speed of business transactions have increased due to improved transportation and communication. Your proposed system would limit the liquidity of our currency by making its supply inelastic. If there isn't enough money around people would begin to hoard it and this would make it illiquid and would screw up the economy.

Having railed against our current monetary system, how do you propose we setup our banking system?

And who's fault is that?



Supply would not be an issue, value would.


The way the Constitution originally intended......

Human nature.

Liberty86.

I just finished my macroeconomics class for college.

The following is a brief excerpt from the research paper I did on the Federal Reserve System. I found much eveidence to support your claims. of course I wanted to get an acceptable grade so I kept the controversy portion to a minimum but I agree with a good portion of your thesis. (Got an A on it by the way) :D
[b]
The Controversial Fed
Despite the powerful positive effect the Federal Reserve System has on our economy, it
is not without its’ detractors and critics. There has even been a recent web campaign
calling for abolishment of the fed. Critics feel that the fed is a central bank that has a monopoly on the issuance of currency. They feel that this has an inflationary effect on the economy.
Conspiracy theorists look all the way back to the feds’ creation in 1913. They argue that the Federal Reserve Act was initially composed as a proposal for legislation by a group of private bankers. In fact, the act creating the fed was opposed by then Congressman Charles Lindbergh Sr. of Minnesota who felt that it would establish a central bank and result in recession, depression and inflation. The feds critics feel that the “reserve system”  allows  banks to claim bank deposits that greatly exceed actual cash deposits.  Their primary goal is to repeal the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and return to the issuance of currency backed with silver, gold, or U.S. Treasury notes.[/b]

Why can't a sovereign nation control it's own money supply?



                         " Guernseys monetary experiment

                                                           

                                                   by Louis Even
                                                     _________
                                                       _____

                                                           

      Guernsey is a small island located in the English Channel. An Anglo-Norman population. This island is located closer to the French coast than
to the English one.

      At the close of the Napoleonic wars, the island, like several other countries, was in pitiful condition, both physically and financially.



                                                     No money

                                                           

      Sea walls, roads, markets were needed. There was no manpower shortage. But there was no money to pay for these works.

      The money used by the people on the Island was the money from England, the pound sterling. But, like after any war, the financiers were
calling back the money advanced to finance the slaughter, and the pounds sterling were very scarce everywhere.

      The Island had an autonomous government, "the States of Guernsey." So it had the rights inherent in all sovereign government, among other rights, that
of regulating the volume of money in circulation in the country. But, no more than any other country, the States of Guernsey had thought of exercising this sovereign
prerogative.

The United States hasn't been on a gold standard since the Nixon administration.

                                               An intelligent governor



      The Island was especially in need of a new market house, and a committee was set up to take care of it. The committee went to see the
governor to explain the situation to him :

      "We need a new Market, but we have no money to build it."

      "With what material are you going to build a market?" asked the governor.

      "With stone and wood."

      "Do you have it in the island?"

      "Certainly, and in plenty."

      "Do you have workers?"

      "Yes again. But it is money that is lacking."

      "Could not your parliament issue the money?" asked the governor.



                                                    A new idea!



      This idea had never occurred to the committeemen, who had never analysed the money question. They knew where to get money when there
was some: but they never wondered where money begins or can begin.

      The method of taxing when there was money was quite familiar. But the method of infecting the money that is lacking, and of taxing only after,
was something new to our administrators.



                                             Issues of national currency



      An estimate of the cost was prepared and the States printed the money required, which was paid to those who either worked on the
project or furnished materials for it.

      As the new currency was paid out into circulation among the people, exchanges were being expedited. The wage-earners went to the
shopkeepers, the shopkeepers went to the producers, the producers bought enough to increase their production.

      The currency was accepted everywhere. The government took measures against inflation by decreeing hat money would be withdrawn
by taxes, so it does not accumulate. And, in fact, the money was retired on schedule by taxes. But, as the increasing activity required a
corresponding volume of money, other issues were brought out by the government for other works.


      On October 12, 1822, the new Market House was completed and opened. Not a penny of public debt on this public enterprise.

                                               The bankers intervene



      At the time of the original issue, there was no bank upon the Island. This explains, without doubt, why there was no opposition to the issue of
State money.

      But ten years after the first issue, the Island had become so prosperous, thanks to the activity allowed by a sufficient volume of
money, that the banks of England had an eye on this island.

      English bankers set up branches in the island and brought the population around to orthodox rules. "It was unsound." They said, "to let the
government finance its enterprises without getting into debt."

      The bankers did everything to stop further issues, to introduce the system of interest-bearing loans to the government, and to withdraw from
the island the State money that had been paid out into circulation.

      There was some resistance, but the bankers won their point, with their usual methods; and on October 9, 1836, the States of Guernsey had
abdicated their sovereign prerogative over the control of the volume of money. From then on, the amount of the national currency decreased gradually,
and was replaced by money issued by private bankers in the form of loans getting the island into debt.

      Nevertheless, there is still about 40 000 pounds sterling ($200 000) of national currency outstanding at this date in the Island. (According to
Gertrude M. Coogan in Money Creators, published in 1935).



                                              Why a financial problem?



      As we can see, with natural resources, workers, and a bit of common sense, there is no financial problem.

      But when shrewd exploiters want to regulate economic activities according to their power and their profit, there the financial problem arises.

      Of course, minds in search of arguments to justify the present regime will say that Guernsey was only an insignificant small island; that the
control of the volume of money by the representatives of the people is good for a small country, but not for a big country.

      All right. Take note of what these gentlemen object to you today. Next week, these same gentlemen will tell you that the money problem
cannot be solved properly in a small territory or a province, but must be brought to a federal or even an international level!

      It was not Social Credit yet in Guernsey from 1820 to 1836. No doubt that the development of that time and that place would not have allowed
to go as far as to give a dividend to consumers. But it was already a non-debt-bearing national currency, issued in accordance with the possibilities in
front of the needs.

      The issues of national currency by the States of Guernsey caused neither inflation nor idleness. They created activity and prosperity.
But these issues did not make any slaves, and that is why the bankers intervened."

So, we should trust the bankers instead?  We know they have our best interests at heart.



You mean the gold certificates of the 1930's were not liquid enough?



Hoarding.  That is the excuse that FDR used before he made gold illegal.  [b]Why did he have to make gold illegal to own if he were replacing it with a supposedly superior form of money?[/b]  Its clear that the value of dollars which are backed by nothing can be manipulated.

Hey jz02 ( [:K] )...... make sure when you go back to the [b]Democratic Underground[/b], you say "hi" to all our friends there! [:D]

Not entirely true. In 1933 we went from the full gold standard to a "modified gold bullion standard". Private ownership of gold was declared illegal in 1933.

Why do you think there is such a media event around the legendary 1933 Double Eagle?

Av.

Actually in 1933 we went off the Gold Standard and were on the Silver Standard until 1964. Don't you guys remember the Silver Certificates for $1's and $5's ?? Same with having silver quarters and dimes, but then they dumped the Silver Standard so now it is all fiat currency.

And sometime in the 90's they even took away the Copper penny. Now all we have are aluminum pennies coated with copper. Whats next....no more Nickel nickels????

This isn't rocket science people, the writing is on the wall......

Our government is more corrupt than most of us would ever dare to think.

Corporate America is more corrupt than most of us realize. Take Enron for example, there is a widely held belief that they caused and profited from the brownouts in California a while back. If any one of us would have said at the time, that a power company was causing the power shortages to make money, they would have been flamed off of this board, tinfoil hats and all. Thats what seemed to have happened though.

One thing I didn't see mentioned in this thread was the fact that paper currency up until the 60's had this printed on the face;

"In silver payable to the bearer on demand."

It was printed directly below the "One Dollar" or appropriate dollar amount on the bill.

Also along the top of the bill was
"Silver certificate"

And
"This certifies that there is on deposit in the treasury of The United States Of America"

If any of you have any old bills and can scan and print them that would be great to show everyone what I am talking about.

Current money is "Federal Reserve Notes" and there is no guarantee of silver.

Bottom line is, these little black rifles we have are the most valuable currency. All of the worthless paper money in the world is not going to keep you alive in a bad situation.

[b]1.  Inflation also occurs under a gold standard[/b]

Imagine I give $100 worth of gold to a person for safekeeping.  He gives me a $95 dollar IOU and keeps $5 for his trouble.  Several other people do this and before long the person has, say $1000 in gold that he has exchanged for slips of paper.  Well, everybody knows that the slips of paper are backed by gold so they just trade them and nobody ever calls for the gold backed by their paper.  The individual recognizes this and figures he can loan out some of the gold that he's accumulated and earn a little money.  So now (with slips of paper outstanding for $950) he loans $300 of gold to somebody else.  At this point the $950 in slips are still circulating as money in addition to the $300 in gold that he has loaned.  Now there is $1250 chasing the same quantity of goods.  What happens?  Inflation.  It was a part of life under the gold standard as well.

This still happens today with conventional bank deposits.  Since a bank isn't required to retain 100% of it's deposits on hand then they lend some out so we can buy houses, cars, etc... and they can earn money.  In doing so they are [u]creating[/u] money.  The very act of banking is inflationary; doesn't matter if the money is backed by gold or trust.

It's irrelevant that you may be able to buy a suit with a $5 gold coin.  It might be important if you got paid even minimum wage in gold coins at face value, but you don't.  Prices have gone up, certainly, but so have wages.   Making $5 a week and buying suits for $5 is exactly the same as making $500 a week and buying suits for $500.


[b]2.  The gold standard complicates international trade[/b]

Country A exports a lot to Country B and imports very little from A.  Making these payments in gold would result in an accumulation of gold in A and a reduction in B.  Ultimately the quantity of money (and the price of goods) in A would rise and would drop in B.  This makes the products of A unaffordable to B and thus A can no longer export.  In fact, the reverse starts happening.  The price of goods from B becomes cheaper than A and goods will now flow from B to A.  This did in fact happen in to the U.S. from 1949 until the link to gold  was completely severed in 1972.

[b]3.  Myth:  Inflation is bad[/b]

Inflation isn't necessarily good or bad.  If somebody owes you $100 at the end of the year you hope for little to no inflation so that $100 will still have the same power at the end of the year.  Even better, you hope for deflation so you can buy more with that $100 when you get it back than you could when you loaned it.  So inflation hurts those receiving fixed payments.  On the other hand, if you owe somebody a fixed amount of money (i.e. mortgage, car payment, credit card) then you should be praying for inflation.  It means that the quantity of money you have to pay back becomes less and less.  Inflation is good for people who owe money and bad for people who are owed money.  It's not evil or sinister, it just is.

[b]4.  Myth:  Debt is bad[/b]

Debt is another thing that has a poor connotation to it.  Why is it bad for a person or a country to be in debt?  While some debt is a poor financial choice (consumer credit, for example) there are several kinds of debt that are valuable.  A family is typically better off buying a house on debt then perpetually renting one.  Debt financed education generally pays for itself.  If a company can borrow capital at 6% and get a 12% return on operations then they would be foolish not to borrow as much as their capacity permits.  If a country can fuel growth by deficit spending with the expectation of getting increased future revenue as a result then, once again, debt makes sense.  Of course it's a stretch to assume that some of our spending programs carry a reasonable expectation of return, but the basic facts remain.

This issue isn't as simple as "Federal Reserve Board bad, gold standard good"  While the simplicity is appealing, it just doesn't satisfy the requirements that a financial system for such a huge economy requires.  Without question the average American is better off financially than he was 50 or 100 years ago.  We have more leisure time, more "toys", and more discretionary spending.  While there's certainly room for improvement I have to believe that, for the most part, the results speak for themselves.

BZZZZ

From 1928 to the present there have been several types of notes circulating at the same time.

1928 - 1934: Gold Certificates
1928 - 1966: United states notes
1929: Federal Reserve Bank Notes
1929: National Currency
1928 - 1957: Silver Certificates
1928 - Present: Federal Reserve Notes

Not ALL currency was a silver certificate.

I have a massive (1500+) paper money collection at home, I'll scan some notes and post them if you want.

Av.

I think you just described fractional reserve banking.  

How did this get started anyhow?

People started putting their money in banks and recieved a certificate for their gold.

Commerce was carried out using the certificates instead of the gold coins.

Bankers noticed that the depositors rarely demanded all of their gold so they decided to print up a few extra certificates for their own use.

These extra certificates caused the dilution in the value of certificates in existance, hence inflation resulted.

Borrowers were able to pay back loans with inflated certificates.

Creditors (the rich who should pay their fair share) had their wealth diminished.

Fractional Reserve banking is what causes inflation--not the use of gold.

Because it is assumed that the market is incapable of regulating itself without the help of the government.

Because "control" means dilution of the existing money supply to pay for whatever suits the governments fancy.  How was it that FDR payed for all those government goodies during the depth of the depression anyhow?

I think it would be great to see what would happen if most of the depositors withdrew their funds in cash. HAHAHAHAHA.... Most banks only keep 5% of their actual deposits on hand in cash.  This entire game would be OVER.

Wanna know more about the federal reserve?
[url]http://land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/federal_reserve.shtml[/url]

Exactly my point.  Inflation occurs regardless of what backs the currency.  Some postings have suggested that tying a currency to a commodity such as gold or silver prevents inflation.  This just isn't true and reveals a basic lack of economic understanding.

I don't buy it, and someone already pointed out that if there were a substance that was scarce but ugly it wouldn't be valuable.  Gold is considered valuable because you can make pretty things with it...no other reason.  

The most valuable currency today is whoever has the most superior nuclear, biological, and chemical offense and defensive system.

For the sake of brevity liberty86 has posted an article that most on this board should read and take to heart.
I have over 25 years experience in the economic field and the assertions made here are correct with the exception of the gold standard. We came off the gold standard so that debt could be created. Back in the 18th century great granddady Rothchild bosted that he could control a country by controlling its currency. We have a faith based system which in essence means that the dollar is worth whatever the bankers determine its worth to be. There is nothing that backs it since all the gold and silver is now controlled by the Federal Reserve.
The Fed does not fight inflation it creates it in order to devalue the possessions we obtain through debt and paper.
Along with this the US Congress took away your right to own anything back in '33 when they took us off the gold standard and declared that all property rights were inherent in only the government. I challenge anyone here to come forward with a deed to property that does not have a land use agreement attached somewhere. What that means is that you live on a piece of property that the government actually owns and you pay rent on. Somewhere in the future and it looks like it may happen sooner than latter all property will be recalled to the government. All those who believe that they have a right to their homes will be unpleasantly supprised. But please don't believe a word I'm saying. Do a title search on your property extending back to 1899 when the United States of America(that is where most of us live) became an occupied territory of the United States(that is Washington DC).
Thanks liberty86. Now I know that there are others out there who are paying attention.

No, Thank YOU Nick! Yes, there are others paying attention. Some know exactly whats going on......

I disagree.  Although the impact of inflation might be good or bad for individuals, depending upon their financial situation, its net impact upon the economy as a whole is bad.

Why?  Because inflation is a form of instability and it tends to feed upon itself.  It's hard for anyone to do business when prices keep changing.

Foreign control of Fed/conspiracy = horsepuckey

http://www.estreet.com/business/cpm/FederalReserve.html

I prefer to rely on this Source: Federal Reserve Directors: A Study of Corporate and Banking Influence. Staff Report,Committee on Banking,Currency and Housing, House of Representatives, 94th Congress, 2nd Session, August 1976.
[url]http://land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/federal_reserve.shtml[/url]

rather than a university professor with an agenda from an investment website thanks.....