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

democracydefinedcampaign · 13-08-2007, 06:38 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 !

There is no comparison between an institution 'creating' so-called money out of thin air, and the wealth produced by investing in the stock of a productive company.

Banks only pay a minimal paltry interest even on large deposits, and returns are barely, if at all, above inflation.
Banks put forth no labour, creating nothing. Lending-at-interest embodies stagnation and sloth.
Banks can go bankrupt, especially when they lend more than they hold in reserves -- and that is the way all 'Western' banks operate today -- i.e. fractional reserve lending. They are all technically bankrupt; only a slight crisis can cause a run and disaster for depositors.
Definition. Fractional reserve lending is the name given to the process whereby banks currently "lend money" which actually does not exist, and for which they hold no reserve. The system is corruptly 'permitted' to facilitate the ambitions, and protect the criminality of Usurers (i.e. private money-lenders-at-interest, owners of banks).

The immoral acts of Usurers (owners of banks) comprise criminal fraud, and are recognised as such at all times, in all places and by all civilised cultures (URL below). However, currently, as the result of politicians' acquiesence to, and abetment of, venal crime, this massive fraud is prosecuted only when the man in the street commits it... In order to protect the usurious owners of banks, the U.K. government seeks to prevent fraud issues from being tried in front of Juries of citizens. Instead, these cases are to be heard by the government's beholden employees: judges.

~

By stark contrast, assuming your money is real and derived from reputable means (e.g. not from Usury, i.e. lending-at-interest or by fractional reserve lending), when you buy stock in a company you invest real money. You are a part-owner of the company. The company's worth is increased by the amount you invest. You can sell your stock; participate in the company as a stockholder and creatively share in the risk and enterprise; you receive a share in the profits and success of what is in effect your company.

A well-run company producing benefits for investors goes up in the estimation of the public, attracts yet more investment, and the value of its stock, that is your stock, bought at the previous lower price, increases. You will receive real money if you sell stock. What is more, by investing in stock you are actively promoting industry, trade and employment. This is producing real wealth -- not at all like the figmental electronic transfers (or bookkeeping entries -- viz. Sir Josiah Stamp's "flick of a pen") from one account to another, by a bank which has no reserve, nothing to back its fractional reserve 'lending' at ferocious interest.

Certainly, 'bubbles' can be created which may burst as a result of highly speculative risky investments, but that sort of gamble is not the attraction for the average investor. Spreading your investment over a portfolio of companies generally protects you from the slow grower or occasional failure. Nevertheless, even the slow-grower will generally pay you much more of a dividend than the bank's interest (which will scarcely equal inflation) -- and the value of your original sum invested, grows.
~

An important fact to bear in mind related to the failure of companies, is that this is caused by banks taking interest on loans.

When, instead of lending-at-interest, banks put (real) money into a company as an investor and part-owner, taking a share in both risks and profit, the bank does all in its power to ensure the survival and profitability of the company, and does not not allow the company to go bust.

Quite the opposite situation occurs when banks are allowed to lend-at-interest. Whatever disgraceful charade they feign about bankruptcies, banks are actually happy to see a company to whom they have lent money, go bankrupt. They fire the employees, buy up its holdings, investments, machinery, office equipment, plant, managerial and sales representatives' cars, etc., at pennies on the pound of their real value. They re-sell everything cheaply -- but still at a good profit -- although the worth of the repossessions have usually already long since been paid for by the firm's capital and interest payments to the bank.

~

As an alternative in house or car purchases, white goods, etc., buyers at no interest can repay a capital sum to the bank or building society over time, as an interest-free hire-purchase. Fully insured, the item or property, as always, is surety. Banks (assuming they have real money with which to enter the transaction) pay the seller on behalf of the buyer making a one-off commission (service charge).

Despite some successful ventures, lending and borrowing-at-interest uniformly always depresses and discourages productive enterprise. The manager or boss of every enterprise will confirm how much more could be achieved if interest were not payable on loans. There is every good reason why banks or private individuals should not charge interest; and prohibiting lending-at-interest would do wonders for the economy. Let the banks become an honourable component of society, not what they are now: a parasitic organism of oppression of the people and a deadly disease to the body politic. Let the banks invest in real jobs and productivity of our peoples instead, and let us outlaw once again the Crimes of Usury.

Remember: there is never a need to borrow at interest -- the other well-known alternative techniques are available.

Since time immemorial, Usury (lending-at-interest) has been recognised for its destructive attributes and outlawed by all cerebral cultures, including Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Any society which permits usury inevitably paves the way to the people's miserable enslavement to debt. By the adoption of these principles, money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity.

Spread the word and show people that there is a worthwhile alternative to Usury.

Yours sincerely,
Kenn d'Oudney. Director.

See the references on this URL:
What Magna Carta Offers the Modern World.

democracydefinedcampaign · 14-08-2007, 10:49 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 !

Thanks Vich the Yankee for posting up the video.

Here are some comments about that video entitled "Money, Banking and the Federal Reserve" (hereafter referred to as MBFR) -- which is not to be confused with the documentary video Money Masters.

We would agree that the Mises Institute, Murray Rothbard and the "Libertarian" Party viewpoints expressed in this MBFR video conclude correctly for abolition of the Federal Reserve private-owned bank system, which is (with trivial differences), duplicated in the U.K. However, the shortcomings of the commentary are crucial. While MBFR recounts events and effects visited upon the population, the causes and malicious intent behind them are either deliberately obscured or deemed too intimidating to confront, and therefore, not explained to the viewer.

The 1913 transfer of ownership of the U.S. central bank into private hands, the Federal Reserve, gave ownership and control to a few principal private owners. By usurious and fraudulent techniques, including fractional reserve lending, i.e. lending-at-interest non-existent 'money' at a ratio of -- not merely 10% -- but actually through their and others' subsidiary privately-owned banks -- at 1% -- these unscrupulous people's machinations have manipulated by far the world's largest economy, putting the government and people of the United States into catastrophic endebtment. These few families of generations of money-lenders have taken possession of the world: they are the money masters.

The people who have controlled the Western and Third World economies corrupted our political leaders into adoption of antidemocratic objectives and methods. There is a covert but very real dictatorship extant and the dictators are not satisfied by less than total domination of the political and social structure of the world. They operate outside the law and are beyond the reach of justice -- at least, that is so under the present corrupt political system which serves these de facto criminals. ("Steal a little and they throw you in jail; steal a lot and they make you a king.")

From the way they put it, the MBFR would have us believe mere monetary mismanagement has brought all this about. That is not so. The money-lenders know very well what they have been doing. From their point of view their achievements to date have been great. They are now embarking on the final stages of their long-planned New World Order coup.

Those in UKIP and others who do not know who is really directing events from behind the scenes, are not in a position to understand, much less influence or prevent, their occurrence.

The "Money Masters" video explains in more depth than this other video, which is so superficial as actually to give an incorrect and even untruthful view. For example, unlike Money Masters, this other video does not go into the illegitimate takeover of ownership and transfer overseas of the Fort Knox (U.S.) and other world gold reserves. This asset is now in the hands of these few money-lending families.

Do the makers of the MBFR not even know about the loss of the U.S. gold ? Obviously not ! Because they advocate returning to a gold-based currency. The re-establishment of such at this juncture would be as disastrous as keeping the Federal Reserve system -- because it merely transfers the covert dictatorship to the same people who now hold the gold. Even using 100% of tax revenues as collateral (obviously impracticable), the endebtment of Western governments no longer allows them the ability to buy the required minimum sufficient gold on which to base the currencies -- and trying to do so would merely increase the wealth -- and hegemony -- of the private owners of the world's stock of gold.

Whoever originates and controls the volume of money, controls every single economic operation. Therefore, it is essential to monetary stability as well as to maintaining national sovereignty, that the import and export of capital be kept in balance, so that the domestic money supply not be subject to manipulation nor to fluctuation in quantity.

According to Economics' Nobel laureate Professor Milton Friedman, it is neither feasible nor desirable to restore a gold-or-silver coin standard, but we do need a commitment to sound money. By definition and in practice, a national currency and money supply can only be effectively created and managed with propriety by a national government, not by local governments or private persons.

The best arrangement currently would be to require the government to issue notes (currency) sufficient for government and consumers' spending and to keep the percentage rate of growth of the monetary base within a fixed range. One version would be:

"Congress shall have the power to authorise non-interest-bearing obligations of the government in the form of currency or book entries, provided that the total dollar amount outstanding increases by no more than 5 percent per year and no less than 3 percent."

"A Constitutional Amendment would be the most effective way to establish confidence in the stability of the rule. However, it is not the only way to impose the rule. Congress could equally well legislate it." The aforegoing also applies to the U.K.

Quoted from: A Program for Monetary Stability, by. Dr. Milton Friedman, Fordham University Press, pgs. X, 66-76, 100-101; and, Free to Choose by Dr. Milton & Rose Friedman, Harcourt Brace & Co., pgs. 307-308.

It is a fundamental precept that money cannot come into 'existence' as 'electronic transfers' for loans or in response to loan applications, but only as the total stock of available goods increases (or a reasonable approximation thereof, such as three percent per annum).

Prior inequitable and usurious profits accumulated by banks from fraudulent fractional reserve lending must be addressed, but unlike the Money Masters which gives a program for legislation, the MBFR video does not even recognise the danger of allowing the money-lenders to retain their position of empowerment achieved by ill-gotten gains taken from the toiling population. The money-lenders are in possession of prior profits of some $360 billion (1996 commercial bank net worth), most of it from such unjust practices. Likewise, prior distribution of profits to bank owners is not addressed.

This vast wealth and the economic and political influence it represents, particularly through the control of the media it has purchased, constitutes a standing danger to democracies everywhere. It must be nullified by re-introduction of Usury Laws outlawing Usury (lending-at-interest) and fractional reserve 'lending'; and by effective Anti-Trust Legislation and/or Court action breaking-up the giant banks and media into small localised units with separate ownership, or more aggressively by a bank nationalisation.

The goal is not nationalisation of banks, but of money; and to criminalise the malpractices of Usurers.

The general feeling from the video is that there has been mismanagement. It avoids the issue that criminal intent and private imperialism has been behind the major economic events of the last hundred years and up to the present day. By contrast, we would recommend people to view the more deeply penetrating MONEY MASTERS video.

Bearing in mind that the owned and controlled mass media are not permitted to educate and inform the population as to the criminality of the political events of our time, it is incumbent upon all responsible democratic adults to spread the information therein.

Yours sincerely,
Kenn d'Oudney. Director.

THE MONEY MASTERS documentary video is 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.

This documentary video (shown on U.S. PBS national educational T.V.) is endorsed by academics and economists, including Economics' Nobel laureate Professor Milton Friedman, Official Economics Adviser to the Reagan administration.

Money Masters Part One

Google Video

Money Masters Part Two:

Google Video

John Carter · 17-08-2007, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

Anyone seen this in the states.

http://www.libertydollar.org/

Yep.

And the US government doesn't like it - they're going after that and various other attempts at bringing back the gold standard and/or bypassing the dollar.

TonyG · 17-08-2007, 11:29 AM

The only reason they would be 'going after' it is because it is a network marketing/pyramid scam.

John Carter · 17-08-2007, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TonyG

The only reason they would be 'going after' it is because it is a network marketing/pyramid scam.

No. The reason they're going after it is because they don't like it - if enough people figured out that fiat money is a scam, their whole economy would collapse. Not to mention that if everything is traded in real money, they lose a control and monitoring layer. So they try to nip it in the bud early.

IIRC, they're using financial regulations to go after these alternative currencies.

Here's a bit of the wiki about e-gold:

Quote:

On 27 April 2007, a federal grand jury in Washington, D.C. indicted e?Gold Ltd and its owners on charges of money laundering, conspiracy, and operating an unlicensed money transmitting business

Here's some about the Liberty Dollar:

Quote:

Numerous individuals within the US Government have been interviewed regarding the Liberty Dollar. One Secret Service agent stated "It's not counterfeit money" while remaining "skeptical" of NORFED. Another agent warned that the Liberty Dollar "appears to be in violation of Title 18, Section 514 of the United States Code."

Claudia Dickens, spokeswoman for the U.S. Treasury Department's Bureau of Engraving and Printing, had previously said American Liberty Currency is legitimate. "There's nothing illegal about this," Dickens said after the Treasury Department's legal team reviewed the currency. "As long as it doesn't say 'legal tender' there's nothing wrong with it."

In 2006 the U.S. Mint issued a press release stating that prosecutors at the Justice Department had determined that using Liberty Dollars as circulating money is a federal crime. The press release also intonated that the “Liberty Dollars” are meant to compete with the circulating coinage (currency) of the United States and such competition consequently is a criminal act.

TonyG · 17-08-2007, 12:37 PM

John, I'm not talking about whether it is illegal or not, or whether it is competing with the dollar, but the fact that it is, in reality, just a product, not a currency.
Look closer at it and you will see that it is set up as a networking business.

My earlier posts give a bit more detail:

Check out the $1000 Gold Liberty!
It contains one Troy ounce of gold - worth $673.15. Wow! That's some inflation proofing, you lose 32.685% of your money on day 1 - mind you it does have a face value of $1000!
Bad, bad, bad scam.

It only has a face value of $1000 if someone is prepared to give $1000 in goods, services or acknowledged currency for it. But is it worth $1000? No, it's worth $673.15. Gold would have to increase in value by at least 50% to get your purchase price back - it is a scam, nothing more.

It's all very well claiming that things are better than money, but try taking your Pissarro down to Sainsbury's to get your shopping done.
The Liberty Dollar isn't much better than a scam really. Sure, you get your vouchers, but it is simply a front for a network marketing operation.
You buy $100 of certificates for $250, your sponsor gets $100, they get to keep $50 and when you sponsor someone else you get $100.
It's a joke! Only an idiot would buy into this little pyramid.

It is not a valid proposition to anyone but the operators of the scheme.

John Carter · 17-08-2007, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TonyG

John, I'm not talking about whether it is illegal or not, or whether it is competing with the dollar, but the fact that it is, in reality, just a product, not a currency.

I'm not talking about whether it's a product or a currency either. I'm simply telling you why the US government is going after it.

There's nowt illegal about selling stuff for more than it's worth. And there's nowt illegal about giving folks a commission for selling product (else Tupperware would be in a fix).

TonyG · 17-08-2007, 12:49 PM

But there's absolutely no reason at all for them to go after it for the reasons you have stated. It isn't a valid alternative in any respect, it isn't even backed by gold, it just gives the impression that it is.
The biggest reason for shutting it down is that it is only worth anything as long as people buy into it and don't rely on 'spending' the 'dollars'. At the point they do it collapses because there is no actual product, unlike Tupperware.

John Carter · 17-08-2007, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TonyG

But there's absolutely no reason at all for them to go after it for the reasons you have stated.

Control of money supply, as per thread title. If everyone were to start using liberty dollars tomorrow, the powers that be would no longer have control.

The US government doesn't like it when their citizens try to live off-grid.

TonyG · 17-08-2007, 01:04 PM

Quote:

If everyone were to start using liberty dollars tomorrow

They have as much a worry about that happening as acorns and pomegranates taking over the money supply.

13-08-2007, 06:38 PM	#51 (permalink)
democracydefinedcampaign Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: London/ France. Posts: 53	Who Controls Our Money Supply? Who Are the Money Masters? 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 ! There is *no comparison* between an institution 'creating' so-called money out of thin air, and the wealth produced by investing in the stock of a productive company. Banks only pay a minimal paltry interest even on large deposits, and returns are barely, if at all, above inflation. Banks put forth no labour, creating nothing. Lending-at-interest embodies stagnation and sloth. Banks can go bankrupt, especially when they lend more than they hold in reserves -- and that is the way all 'Western' banks operate today -- i.e. fractional reserve lending. They are all technically bankrupt; only a slight crisis can cause a run and disaster for depositors. Definition. Fractional reserve lending is the name given to the process whereby banks currently "lend money" which actually does not exist, and for which they hold no reserve. The system is corruptly 'permitted' to facilitate the ambitions, and protect the criminality of Usurers (i.e. private money-lenders-at-interest, owners of banks). The immoral acts of Usurers (owners of banks) comprise criminal fraud, and are recognised as such at all times, in all places and by all civilised cultures (URL below). However, currently, as the result of politicians' acquiesence to, and abetment of, venal crime, this massive fraud is prosecuted only when the man in the street commits it... In order to protect the usurious owners of banks, the U.K. government seeks to prevent fraud issues from being tried in front of Juries of citizens. Instead, these cases are to be heard by the government's beholden employees: judges. ~ By stark contrast, assuming your money is real and derived from reputable means (e.g. not from Usury, i.e. lending-at-interest or by fractional reserve lending), when you buy stock in a company you invest real money. You are a part-owner of the company. The company's worth is increased by the amount you invest. You can sell your stock; participate in the company as a stockholder and creatively share in the risk and enterprise; you receive a share in the profits and success of what is in effect your company. A well-run company producing benefits for investors goes up in the estimation of the public, attracts yet more investment, and the value of its stock, that is your stock, bought at the previous lower price, increases. You will receive real money if you sell stock. What is more, by investing in stock you are actively promoting industry, trade and employment. This is producing real wealth -- not at all like the figmental electronic transfers (or bookkeeping entries -- viz. Sir Josiah Stamp's "flick of a pen") from one account to another, by a bank which has no reserve, nothing to back its fractional reserve 'lending' at ferocious interest. Certainly, 'bubbles' can be created which may burst as a result of highly speculative risky investments, but that sort of gamble is not the attraction for the average investor. Spreading your investment over a portfolio of companies generally protects you from the slow grower or occasional failure. Nevertheless, even the slow-grower will generally pay you much more of a dividend than the bank's interest (which will scarcely equal inflation) -- and the value of your original sum invested, grows. ~ An important fact to bear in mind related to the failure of companies, is that this is caused by banks taking interest on loans. When, instead of lending-at-interest, banks put (real) money into a company as an investor and part-owner, taking a share in both risks and profit, the bank does all in its power to ensure the survival and profitability of the company, and does not not allow the company to go bust. Quite the opposite situation occurs when banks are allowed to lend-at-interest. Whatever disgraceful charade they feign about bankruptcies, banks are actually happy to see a company to whom they have lent money, go bankrupt. They fire the employees, buy up its holdings, investments, machinery, office equipment, plant, managerial and sales representatives' cars, etc., at pennies on the pound of their real value. They re-sell everything cheaply -- but still at a good profit -- although the worth of the repossessions have usually already long since been paid for by the firm's capital and interest payments to the bank. ~ As an alternative in house or car purchases, white goods, etc., buyers at no interest can repay a capital sum to the bank or building society over time, as an interest-free hire-purchase. Fully insured, the item or property, as always, is surety. Banks (assuming they have real money with which to enter the transaction) pay the seller on behalf of the buyer making a one-off commission (service charge). Despite some successful ventures, lending and borrowing-at-interest uniformly always depresses and discourages productive enterprise. The manager or boss of every enterprise will confirm how much more could be achieved if interest were not payable on loans. There is every good reason why banks or private individuals should not charge interest; and prohibiting lending-at-interest would do wonders for the economy. Let the banks become an honourable component of society, not what they are now: a parasitic organism of oppression of the people and a deadly disease to the body politic. Let the banks invest in real jobs and productivity of our peoples instead, and let us outlaw once again the Crimes of Usury. Remember: there is never a need to borrow at interest -- the other well-known alternative techniques are available. Since time immemorial, Usury (lending-at-interest) has been recognised for its destructive attributes and outlawed by all cerebral cultures, including Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Any society which permits usury inevitably paves the way to the people's miserable enslavement to debt. By the adoption of these principles, money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity. Spread the word and show people that there is a worthwhile alternative to Usury. Yours sincerely, Kenn d'Oudney. Director. See the references on this URL: What Magna Carta Offers the Modern World. __________________ The Home Page of The not-for-profit Educational Campaign for RESTORATION and UNIVERSAL ADOPTION of CONSTITUTIONAL COMMON LAW TRIAL BY JURY. http://www.democracydefined.org/ The Democracy Defined Campaign Philosophy is endorsed by academics, attorneys, doctors (of jurisprudence, medicine, philosophy, etc.) and judges (U.S. & U.K.).

17-08-2007, 11:29 AM	#54 (permalink)
TonyG Uber Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 2,589	The only reason they would be 'going after' it is because it is a network marketing/pyramid scam. __________________ 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

17-08-2007, 12:37 PM	#56 (permalink)
TonyG Uber Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 2,589	John, I'm not talking about whether it is illegal or not, or whether it is competing with the dollar, but the fact that it is, in reality, just a product, not a currency. Look closer at it and you will see that it is set up as a networking business. My earlier posts give a bit more detail: Check out the $1000 Gold Liberty! It contains one Troy ounce of gold - worth $673.15. Wow! That's some inflation proofing, you lose 32.685% of your money on day 1 - mind you it does have a face value of $1000! Bad, bad, bad scam. It only has a face value of $1000 if someone is prepared to give $1000 in goods, services or acknowledged currency for it. But is it worth $1000? No, it's worth $673.15. Gold would have to increase in value by at least 50% to get your purchase price back - it is a scam, nothing more. It's all very well claiming that things are better than money, but try taking your Pissarro down to Sainsbury's to get your shopping done. The Liberty Dollar isn't much better than a scam really. Sure, you get your vouchers, but it is simply a front for a network marketing operation. You buy $100 of certificates for $250, your sponsor gets $100, they get to keep $50 and when you sponsor someone else you get $100. It's a joke! Only an idiot would buy into this little pyramid. It is not a valid proposition to anyone but the operators of the scheme. __________________ 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

17-08-2007, 12:49 PM	#58 (permalink)
TonyG Uber Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 2,589	But there's absolutely no reason at all for them to go after it for the reasons you have stated. It isn't a valid alternative in any respect, it isn't even backed by gold, it just gives the impression that it is. The biggest reason for shutting it down is that it is only worth anything as long as people buy into it and don't rely on 'spending' the 'dollars'. At the point they do it collapses because there is no actual product, unlike Tupperware. __________________ 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