Who Controls Our Money Supply? Who Are the Money Masters?

For_England · 31-07-2007, 10:31 PM

well I have to disagree with some of the material in this presentation. I do not believe in fiat money, where the value is controlled by the government, anymore than I believe in money controlled by private business. I believe there shouldn't be any legislation on the production of money, other than that counterfeiting would be outlawed. This would mean that anyone could mint their gold and silver, and so long as the purity and weight of the metal was genuine, it would be okay. Otherwise it would be counterfeit. The government has the right to insist that their minted coins are used for tax purposes, and of course it would be counterfeiting to try to duplicate their design. But that's it. The fiat money produced by the American colonies had no external value outside of their own local economy. It was only right that the empire insist in payment in gold and silver, and if their money had actual value then that wouldn't have been a problem After all, the colonies were benefitting from a global free trade commonwealth paid for largely by Britain, so their wealth was artificial, since they weren't paying their part of the upkeep - I cannot believe that the wealth was the result of having fiat money, but in trading within a commonwealth on very favourable terms.

John Welch · 01-08-2007, 04:11 AM

The BOE was semi-private until 1946 when the Cabinet set interest rates, now set by the public bank. Has this change created the benefits that are claimed will be achieved by removing the conspiracy of US Fed? Magna Carta in clause 61 gives the barons ,such as Baron Rothschild the right to fleece the king:
"If we, our chief justice, our officials, or any of our servants offend in any respect against any man,( by government debt)... the twenty-five barons, who may distrain upon and assail us in every way possible, with the support of the whole community of the land, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions.. Any man who so desires may take an oath to obey the commands of the twenty-five barons for the achievement of these ends, and to join with them in assailing us to the utmost of his power. "
The final phrase is the authority to create private electricity companies, which rake in the loot big time.

democracydefinedcampaign · 03-08-2007, 11:49 PM

The Democracy Defined Campaign Philosophy is endorsed by academics, attorneys,
doctors (of jurisprudence, medicine, philosophy, etc.), and judges (U.S. & U.K.).

Greetings to Fellow Forum Readers !

To those whose comments do deserve a response, consider the following.

The Borrower.

Two men were standing by the electrified gates at the foot of the drive of an enormous beautiful property which was endowed with all the appurtenances associated with the wealthy successful entrepreneur: indoor and outdoor swimming pools; helicopter, heliport and hangar; garage with several luxury limousines and glamourous sports' cars; stables with fine steeds; spacious grounds accommodating rare species of antelope; and numerous staff to run the premises.

One of the men reached into his briefcase and taking out a document, he showed it to his companion saying, "This property is mine. I've bought it and here are the deeds, the papers which prove it."

The companion replied, "I'm impressed! You've done really well. Congratulations! By the way, what are those other official-looking papers in your briefcase?"

"Those?" asked the first man, "oh, well, those are the loan agreements I've made. Actually, I'm skint. I don't have any money of my own -- only what I can con out of people who are susceptible to being fleeced; and the rest is borrowed."

The moral of this allegory is that it is a delusion to think anyone 'owns' anything which is 'bought' on borrowing. It, and a lot more besides, can be removed by the creditor at any moment. The borrower is the servant of the lender. The man with the briefcase represents the government and the property represents the Bank of England; the source of the borrowed money are the private banks; the people being fleeced are the taxpayers.

~

The Lender Is the Master of the Borrower

To buy war materials during the Second World War, gold reserves were totally depleted and ownership of patents on inventions was transferred to the U.S. This was 'Cash and Carry' and it lasted until all U.K. resources were spent. Then followed 'Lend-Lease' which, when terminated, had put us into vast debt. Then, as now, taxpayers pay the interest on government's borrowings. Everything the government 'has' is provided by the taxpayer citizen.

In 1946, an 'act' of 'nationalisation' of the Bank of 'England', was only that: a symbol, an act. Every economist refers to it as notional, figmental or symbolic. It made no practical difference to the running of the Bank which remained agent and debt manager, and the Treasury's controller and 'adviser'. During and after the war it administered exchange control and borrowing restrictions.

Clement Atlee's legislation showing 'nationalisation' of the Bank of 'England' was worth no more than the paper on which it was written. The 'collateral' for the purchases of whole industries which government 'nationalised' was the revenue to be taken from the man and woman in the street, the taxpayer, who were burdened for their lifetime with the debt of interminable government borrowing.

The sham continues today. In 1997, the government announced its intention to transfer full operational responsibility for monetary policy to the Bank of 'England'. The Bank was given full independence as a central bank. The Bank ceased to be responsible for the management of government debt and the government even relinquished the power to set interest rates.

At the end of 2006, the 39-45 War Loans were finally repaid. However, the subsequent and current Public Sector Borrowing remains a mountain of debt owed to the private banking system which issues the borrowing merely in the form of a credit transfer. That is, an electronic transaction occurs by which our government is made into a debtor -- no real money changes hands -- no goods and certainly no 'gold' is passed from the private banks to the government. Again, the private citizen is taxed to provide the money to repay the huge sums of interest paid by the government to the private family-owned banks.

There is no good reason for the economy to be mismanaged in this way. The British taxpayer is endebted for eternity by corrupt politicians who should be running the economy for the benefit of the people rather than representing the interests of the owners of private banks.

Wars and Strife.

The Money Masters documentary gives examples of how banks promote wars in order to finance all participating factions -- at interest. It is no coincidence that the owners of the major banks, being some few private families and their consortia, also own the largest private multi-national corporations on the planet: oil & energy, armaments, pharmaceutical, motor industry, press & mass media, etc.

Over the centuries, the Usurers (refer to the post on usury, URL below) have repeatedly inveigled their way into making governments and the people their debtors and servants, but many examples show how this cause of poverty, strife and actually, war, can be avoided.

One example is Scrip (or Colonial Scrip). This is paper money issued by the government free of interest, based on the real product of the people of the country, their goods and services. A further example comes from the U.S.:

Having had the practical success of his invention of the government-issued 'greenback' dollar, Abraham Lincoln summarised the formula for arranging societies everywhere for the benefit of the people rather than for the profiteering owners of the private banks, as follows:

"The government should create, issue and circulate all the currency and credit to satisfy the spending power of the government and the buying power of the consumers."

"The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of government, but it is the government's greatest creative opportunity."

"By the adoption of these principles, the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity."
Abraham Lincoln. (Emphasis added.)

See the solution to Britain's endebtedness in both Parts of the video documentary Money Masters.

Note that a monetary system based on gold unnecessarily emplaces an economic dictatorship in the hands of those who have possession of the gold. Ordinary people are denied the right to own gold, except in the form of alloyed minted coins, or trinkets the cost of which far outweighs the worth of the metal. Likewise, silver.

Revealingly, the cheap wooden tallystick proved to be as reliable as any metal-based currency. It was in use for 720 years and was only finally stopped at the insistence of the privately-owned Bank of 'England' who desired their hoard of gold to form the basis of a new monetary system -- see more in the documentary video Money Masters.

C_steam, if you read the post again in the thread "The Plan to Implant You With RFID Chip Progresses," you will see that the quotations you chose to address are not by us, but from the U.K. Money Reform Party. Their thesis is based on solid facts and figures; their analysis is thorough and conclusions sound. Your comments do miss the point: governments are controlled by those who issue credit to them. That is, the borrower is servant to the lender. You would enjoy the edification which comes from viewing the Money Masters video.

The above information is attributed to:
the U.K. Debt Management Office (Agency of H.M. Treasury) website;
the Bank of England website;
The Money Reform Party;
MONEY MASTERS documentary video by Bill Still & Patrick S. J. Carmack, BBA, JD, who practised corporate law and is a former Administrative Law Judge for the Corporation Commission of the State of Oklahoma; Member of the Bar of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Yours sincerely,
Kenn d'Oudney. Director.

Post on Usury by Joanna d'Oudney:
What Magna Carta Offers the Modern World.

MONEY MASTERS:
Part One

Google Video

Part Two:

Google Video

John Welch · 04-08-2007, 09:37 AM

"..a few private families own the largest corporations on the planet: oil-companies,."
Incorporated in 1909 as the Anglo-Persian Oil Co (name changed to Anglo-Iranian Oil in 1935 and to British Petroleum in 1954), BP was half bought-out by the British government at the start of World War 1 to ensure oil supplies for the Royal Navy. BP remained a "crude oil" company until after World War 2, ..On the eve of further reprivatisation of the company in 1983 - when half a billion pounds was raised through the sale of 7% of the government's holding in the company" ..
50% government-owned during two world wars. The Bank of Churchhill?

For_England · 04-08-2007, 05:01 PM

Once again I have to disagree with the idea of scrip or greenbacks. Though much preferable to the present system, a free and sovereign people ought to have control of the wealth, not promises from a government. The documentary wants to pretend that the inflation during colonial times was an exception: it wasn't - it simply showed that in times of national emergency government-issued money becomes worthless. And as i pointed out before, the value was artifial because it was based upon the trade privileges of the empire - and the loss of these trading rights (which amazingly was a cause of grievance among the colonists AFTER the Revolution - they fought to get out of the empire and then moaned that the West Indies were closed to them!) put the economy into a downturn during the early days of the Republic - and might have sank it altogether. Understandebly the British government wanted the taxes paid with real money.

Anyone, or any company, should be allowed to mint gold and silver, and precious metals should be where they belong - in circulation: not in private vaults.

TonyG · 04-08-2007, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Anyone, or any company, should be allowed to mint gold and silver, and precious metals should be where they belong - in circulation: not in private vaults.

So would you encourage the situation where the raw value of a coin would sooner or later be greater than the face value of that coin? Or would you apply a constantly fluctuating value to that coin? Removing precious metals 'from circulation', in coin form, was inevitable.
As for them not being 'in circulation', have a look at people's hands, I think that you can clearly see that said metals are permanently on view, let alone circulating.

For_England · 04-08-2007, 11:01 PM

there isn't any ultimate 'value' of money. If the value of silver fluctuates, then prices will have to be changed accordingly. The same thing happens now anyway. Yes, times have changed. Didn't Gordon Brown have that thinking and cost us billions?

TonyG · 04-08-2007, 11:04 PM

Quote:

If the value of silver fluctuates, then prices will have to be changed accordingly.

What a pathetic suggestion! Nobody would ever know how much buying power they had, all prices would be instantly and conditionally negotiable. Chaos would reign.
Are you drunk?

For_England · 04-08-2007, 11:19 PM

it's too slow to notice ... and it already happens all the time. Prices would be more stable in a silver based economy.

TonyG · 05-08-2007, 09:19 AM

You missed the point.
Yes, prices do change regularly with normal market forces, but the price changing is easy to manage and equate to the money in your pocket/bank.
The difference between that and not knowing how much money is in your pocket/bank is enormous. For a start, we do not have heavy inflation, so many items go down in price, many stay the same and some go up.
With the value of silver fluctuating ALL prices would go up or down with the silver price. It would also give an opportunity for manipulators to interefere, for their own benefit, with the price of silver and affect every aspect of the economy.
Nope, leave the metals where they are and keep them well away from currency.

05-08-2007, 09:19 AM	#30 (permalink)
TonyG Uber Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 2,589	You missed the point. Yes, prices do change regularly with normal market forces, but the price changing is easy to manage and equate to the money in your pocket/bank. The difference between that and not knowing how much money is in your pocket/bank is enormous. For a start, we do not have heavy inflation, so many items go down in price, many stay the same and some go up. With the value of silver fluctuating ALL prices would go up or down with the silver price. It would also give an opportunity for manipulators to interefere, for their own benefit, with the price of silver and affect every aspect of the economy. Nope, leave the metals where they are and keep them well away from currency. __________________ If you don't think you can change the world, who do you expect to do it for you? ---- http://www.mercola.com/townofallopat...ofallopath.htm

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

31-07-2007, 10:31 PM	#21 (permalink)
For_England Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 1,851	well I have to disagree with some of the material in this presentation. I do not believe in fiat money, where the value is controlled by the government, anymore than I believe in money controlled by private business. I believe there shouldn't be any legislation on the production of money, other than that counterfeiting would be outlawed. This would mean that anyone could mint their gold and silver, and so long as the purity and weight of the metal was genuine, it would be okay. Otherwise it would be counterfeit. The government has the right to insist that their minted coins are used for tax purposes, and of course it would be counterfeiting to try to duplicate their design. But that's it. The fiat money produced by the American colonies had no external value outside of their own local economy. It was only right that the empire insist in payment in gold and silver, and if their money had actual value then that wouldn't have been a problem After all, the colonies were benefitting from a global free trade commonwealth paid for largely by Britain, so their wealth was artificial, since they weren't paying their part of the upkeep - I cannot believe that the wealth was the result of having fiat money, but in trading within a commonwealth on very favourable terms.

01-08-2007, 04:11 AM	#22 (permalink)
John Welch Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 180	The BOE was semi-private until 1946 when the Cabinet set interest rates, now set by the public bank. Has this change created the benefits that are claimed will be achieved by removing the conspiracy of US Fed? Magna Carta in clause 61 gives the barons ,such as Baron Rothschild the right to fleece the king: "If we, our chief justice, our officials, or any of our servants offend in any respect against any man,( by government debt)... the twenty-five barons, who may distrain upon and assail us in every way possible, with the support of the whole community of the land, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions.. Any man who so desires may take an oath to obey the commands of the twenty-five barons for the achievement of these ends, and to join with them in assailing us to the utmost of his power. " The final phrase is the authority to create private electricity companies, which rake in the loot big time.

04-08-2007, 09:37 AM	#24 (permalink)
John Welch Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 180	"..a few private families own the largest corporations on the planet: oil-companies,." Incorporated in 1909 as the Anglo-Persian Oil Co (name changed to Anglo-Iranian Oil in 1935 and to British Petroleum in 1954), BP was half bought-out by the British government at the start of World War 1 to ensure oil supplies for the Royal Navy. BP remained a "crude oil" company until after World War 2, ..On the eve of further reprivatisation of the company in 1983 - when half a billion pounds was raised through the sale of 7% of the government's holding in the company" .. 50% government-owned during two world wars. The Bank of Churchhill?

04-08-2007, 05:01 PM	#25 (permalink)
For_England Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 1,851	Once again I have to disagree with the idea of scrip or greenbacks. Though much preferable to the present system, a free and sovereign people ought to have control of the wealth, not promises from a government. The documentary wants to pretend that the inflation during colonial times was an exception: it wasn't - it simply showed that in times of national emergency government-issued money becomes worthless. And as i pointed out before, the value was artifial because it was based upon the trade privileges of the empire - and the loss of these trading rights (which amazingly was a cause of grievance among the colonists AFTER the Revolution - they fought to get out of the empire and then moaned that the West Indies were closed to them!) put the economy into a downturn during the early days of the Republic - and might have sank it altogether. Understandebly the British government wanted the taxes paid with real money. Anyone, or any company, should be allowed to mint gold and silver, and precious metals should be where they belong - in circulation: not in private vaults.

04-08-2007, 11:01 PM	#27 (permalink)
For_England Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 1,851	there isn't any ultimate 'value' of money. If the value of silver fluctuates, then prices will have to be changed accordingly. The same thing happens now anyway. Yes, times have changed. Didn't Gordon Brown have that thinking and cost us billions?

04-08-2007, 11:19 PM	#29 (permalink)
For_England Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 1,851	it's too slow to notice ... and it already happens all the time. Prices would be more stable in a silver based economy.