hitman said:
We stand defeated infront of ur highly informative
Ahem...who's in this 'we'
As i watch this money masters movie. i'm keeping note of their so called 'reliable experts' interviewed as well as others quoted and cross referencing them with the wikipaedia to see how accurate they are. Whenever you hear the phrases 'research has shown..' or 'experts say...' be suspicious as you usually won't get to see the methods used and therefore have no way to question them.
So far in the wikipaedia, i have
[*]Bill Still [The Author] has no mention !
[*]Larry Bates [Economic Advisor, former TN house representative], no mention!
[*]
Charles E. Collins [Presidential candiadte 1996 & 2000]
Mother Jones, a political magazine, called Collins the \"consummate internet candidate,\"[6] in their opinion appealing to an online population of \"isolationists, alarmists, and conspiracy theorists.\" His campaign advocated abolishing the Federal Reserve and the Internal Revenue Service and other pledges noted to be similar to that of the U.S. Taxpayers Party ticket of Howard Phillips and Herbert Titus.[7] Collins and Giumarra won 8,952 votes in the election.
In short this guy sounds like a real nutjob
[*]Henry Pasquet [Economist], no mention!
[*]
Charles August Lindbergh [A congressman from MN who opposed both American entry into World War I, and the 1913 Federal Reserve Act.]
[*]
Louis Thomas McFadden [A Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Pennsylvania.]
McFadden was known as openly antisemitic. He claimed that Jews controlled the American economy, and that the United States had to choose between \"God and the money changers who have unlawfully taken our gold and lawful money into their possession.\"[1] McFadden also blamed Jews for president Roosevelt's decision to abandon the gold standard, and claimed that \"in the United States today, the Gentiles have the slips of paper while the Jews have the lawful money.\"[2] McFadden was also a supporter of Hitler and the Nazis' anti-Jewish policies. McFadden encouraged Hitler's attempts to destroy the alleged Jewish control of the German economy, media, education, and professions.[3] When McFadden ran for the presidency in 1936, one of his slogans was “Christianity instead of Judaism.”
Another nutjob
[*]
Barry Goldwater [ A five-term United States Senator from Arizona (1953–1965, 1969–1987) and the Republican Party's nominee for President in the 1964 election.]
He makes a statement in the movie implying, the Fed does NOT get audited, which is
false, it
does!.
It's possible Goldwater made that statement before the Federal Banking Agency Audit Act (enacted in 1978 as Public Law 95-320), However i still consider this fact a leading ommision by the creators of the movie.
[*]
Julius Caesar
Roman mints printed a denarius coin with this title and his profile on one side, and with an image of the goddess Ceres and Caesar's title of Augur Pontifex Maximus on the reverse. While printing the title of dictator was significant, Caesar's image was not, as it was customary to print consuls and other public officials on coins during the Republic.
No mention is made to how Caesar brought back issuing of money to the state as implied in the movie. Also if you watched the Series Rome then you would recall nowhere is it mentioned that the main reason for his assassination was because he took away the power of the money changers..
Ancient biographers describe the tension between Caesar and the Senate, and his possible claims to the title of king. These events would be the principal motive for Caesar's assassination by his political opponents in the Senate.
[/list]
warthog said:
i see that only prob you have isthat govt issued money is ruling party arm twisting and corrupting.BUt giving power to create your money in the hands of few private bankers is even more evil.
We already established the Fed isn't private, its independent
Independance
warthog said:
the solution is simple create money according to population level and requirements and price level changes.THe money masters ending part explained a lot.
I would like to give a example of govt issued money
the place is a small island gurenzy
Well, if govt. could create money, then it should do it in way that money supply does not exceed the supply of labour, goods & services or
hyperinflation will occur as happened in several countries.
Unlike many countries, Guernsey has not delegated money-creation to the central bank and has instead issued interest-free money from 1822 to 1836, stimulating the growth of economy after Napoleon's wars without creating public debt and without increasing taxes.
This happened because they were bankrupt but had material and workers to fix the leaking dykes along with other infrastructure.
So what happened after 1836 and Why discontinue such a successful system ?
Guernsey has a population of 65,000 and is an island, its the only example one can find of a debt-free or interest-free system that too only for a period of 14 years (?)....as i
google around i see reports saying it continues to this very day and is the reason income taxes are low (20%) and there being no tax on services & goods, ie no VAT.
The big question is to what extent does this system exist in Guernsey ?
If it was total then one could not expect any interest on a personal deposit in such a system, as its 'interest free'. Therefore you would have to invest your money somewhere else. Money flows to where there is an advantage, therefore where is the incentive to loan out money if there is no gain
There i think lies the rub. If Guernsey wants to trade with its neighbours what money will it use ?..it has to use something the others will accept as its money is useless to them and vice versa.
Too much money in the system is a problem and too little is as well, because it leads to unemployment. Therefore in an 'interest free' system there is very little incentive for foreign investment. This system only works where there is a immediate customer & seller. In this case govt needs work done, makes its own money and tells seller it will accept the same in return via taxes.
But what about everything else ?..if govt is not interested in others goods & services then there is no market for them. Therefore there will be contraction of services & goods and this in turn will create other problems. So i think they reached a point where the returns were no longer viable in this 'interest free system' and were facing a credit crunch.
Fast forward a bit and we find Guernsey does have banks that offer interest on deposits, its an offshore finance center deriving nearly a third of its GDP from invested foreign private equity. Therefore this experiment to me seems to have limited use, its not something you can scale up for everything and if so explains its rarity worldwide.
Because of the fundamental problem with it, no incentive, no good!
warthog said:
the 3 main evils are federal reserve+fractional reserve+bank for international settlements.remove them and money would be the servent of humanity and not master.
You think just because
fractional reserve banking creates money from nothing that there is nothing to back it ?
Go ask for a loan sometime and whether the lender will give it to you WITHOUT a security. If you did not realise that security you offer in exchange for the loan is what gives that extra money created by fractional banking its reason to be. Therefore that money you get HAS value.
The central reserve bank does not create money directly, its the banks that loan it out successively that do the job. Each time they can loan out 900% (assuming a 10% reserve ratio) of what they have but its not a problem because each time its loaned out its matched with a securtiy offered by the borrower
In regulated sectors of the banking industry this is the practice however with the subprime mortgage crisis, it was the unregulated sector that was dishing out loans to anyone. Out of the eyes of regulators they were not doing anything illegal until it mushroomed up to the big mess it is today.
warthog said:
also the fed casued depression in 1929 straign from the horse's mouth
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=59405
I don't dispute this, that it was made worse mostly through the Fed's incomptence (at the time) and not as your movie tries to insinuate that, it was purposely done only to benefit the rich few.
warthog said:
Well, everything posted so far is in response to just the first 15 minutes into this movie and wonder whether its worth continuing given the numerous factual errors in it so far.
warthog said:
one more thing you would have a hard time to throw dirt
the US prez who advocated issuing own money
thomas jefferson=creator of the bill of rights
andrew jackson
james madison
vanburren
abharam lincoln
SO would you go agisnt thse famous prez advice esp thomas jefferson who gave Freedom and liberty
[*]
Benjamin Franklin [Founding Father]
No mention that the taxes paid by the US to the UK were a result of "the increasing debt incurred by the Bank of England" and the reason of its secession. That
taxes (the first attempt to impose such a direct tax on its American colonies) were to be paid was a major reason for the revolution, is without doubt.
[*]
Thomas Jefferson [3rd President]
His opposition to the Bank of the United States was fierce: \"I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.\"[33] Nevertheless Madison and Congress, seeing the financial chaos caused by the lack of a national bank in the War of 1812, disregarded his advice and created the Second Bank of the United States in 1816.
[*]
Andrew Jackson [7th President]
In 1835, Jackson managed to reduce the federal debt to only $33,733.05, the lowest it has been since the first fiscal year of 1791.[17] However, this accomplishment was short lived, and a severe depression from 1837 to 1844 caused a ten-fold increase in national debt within its first year.
After a titanic struggle, Jackson succeeded in destroying the Bank by vetoing its 1832 re-charter by Congress and by withdrawing U.S. funds in 1833.
The bank's money-lending functions were taken over by the legions of local and state banks that sprang up. This fed an expansion of credit and speculation. However, due to the practice of banks issuing paper banknotes that were not backed by gold or silver reserves, there was soon rapid inflation and mounting state debts. Then, in 1836, Jackson issued the Specie Circular, which required buyers of government lands to pay in \"specie\" (gold or silver coins). The result was a great demand for specie, which many banks did not have enough of to exchange for their notes. These banks collapsed.[24] This was a direct cause of the Panic of 1837, which threw the national economy into a deep depression. It took years for the economy to recover from the damage.
[*]
Martin Van Buren [8th President]
Martin Van Buren's tenure as New York governor is the second shortest on record. While his term was short, he did manage to pass the Bank Safety Act (an early form of deposit insurance).
Van Buren had few economic tools to deal with the panic of 1837. Van Buren advocated lower tariffs and free trade, and by doing so maintained support of the south for the Democratic party. He succeeded in setting up a system of bonds for the national debt. His party was so split that his 1837 proposal for an \"Independent Treasury\" system did not pass until 1840. It gave the Treasury control of all federal funds and had a legal tender clause that required (by 1843) all payments to be made in legal tender rather than in state bank notes. But the act was repealed in 1841 and never had much impact.
[*]
Abraham Lincoln [16th President]
Passed the National Banking Acts of 1863, 1864, and 1865 which allowed the creation of a strong national financial system.
Nothing to indicate Van Buren or Lincoln were against banks.
[/list]
See above where i've referenced every one of them and the consequences (mainly Jackson's) in doing what you propose. I was quite surprised by several mistaken claims the movie makes about these leaders.
warthog said:
btw the prime casue for the amerian revolution was the british empire to tax the money from the colonists.
Yes, it was their first attempt and is linked to the Stamp Act, but nowhere do i find, as claimed in your movie, that this tax was due to the 'increasing debts' of the Bank of England. The Brit empire, like all empires taxed everyone, expensive
business this empire building, and banks help big time here
... Search youtube for vdos and graphics ...
