Throwback280s
Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2007
- Messages
- 427
I have been a big supporter of Ron Paul's plans to challenge the Federal Reserve's control over our nation. I was also big into his call for a dual currency system in which individuals could deal in gold standard-based currency if they so wished.
However, I watched the excellent film The Money Masters and it's caused me to rethink my position on this issue and question Ron Paul's proposed solution for this problem.
Ron Paul often criticizes fiat currency, paper money created out of thin air. He argues that the eventual goal would be to move towards a hard money system such as the gold standard. The Money Masters argument agrees with the need to abolish the Federal Reserve, get out of the IMF, World Bank, and BIS. And they also criticize a private central bank. However, the film contends that fiat currency is not the ultimate problem facing our nation's economic woes. It is fractional reserve banking (ex. banks loaning out $10,000 based on $1,000 in reserves it has).
The film argues that a Gold Standard is not the way to solve the monetary crisis. Apparently, the IMF and other central banks own approx. 2/3rds of the world's gold supply. By returning to the gold standard at this time, we would be at the mercy and manipulation of these bankers. Also, the film shows that Ben Franklin and other founding fathers felt that the Revolutionary War was fought in part over Great Britain forcing the colonies onto a gold standard and then hoarding their gold through taxation. Instead, the fiat currency the colonies used previously had apparently been a prosperous system.
Rather than adopt a gold standard, the key is to return power of issuing money away from a private bank and back to the US Treasury. The US Treasury notes would be printed interest free and would coincide with a gradual phasing out of fractional reserve banking in the nation's banks.
Here's a summary of the proposed solution put forth by the film:
The film shows that Lincoln's use of this US Treasury Greenback system was an extremely successful and prosperous model. Whereas gold standard-based economies have consistently been manipulated by world banking powers.
I would like to see a detailed rebuttal of this alternative solution to the Federal Reserve if it exists. Any other discussion of various points, strengths and weaknesses, of both approaches would be great.
It seems as if the dual currency proposal Ron Paul wants to offer is a simple bandaid. I am a firm believer in gold and encourage everyone I know to invest in it. But I'm wary of a gold standard with the realization that private bankers have consolidated vast portions of it and can manipulate the value of it as well.
Sometimes I wonder if free market proponents of a gold standard, while they are absolutely courageous and right about exposing the dangers of our Federal Reserve private bank, are acting more in their own self-interest in the desire to remedy the situation with a gold standard. Many of them often heavily invest in the gold market.
I feel like a sound fiat currency issued by the Treasury Dept as the Constitution requires sounds like the better alternative.
However, I watched the excellent film The Money Masters and it's caused me to rethink my position on this issue and question Ron Paul's proposed solution for this problem.
Ron Paul often criticizes fiat currency, paper money created out of thin air. He argues that the eventual goal would be to move towards a hard money system such as the gold standard. The Money Masters argument agrees with the need to abolish the Federal Reserve, get out of the IMF, World Bank, and BIS. And they also criticize a private central bank. However, the film contends that fiat currency is not the ultimate problem facing our nation's economic woes. It is fractional reserve banking (ex. banks loaning out $10,000 based on $1,000 in reserves it has).
The film argues that a Gold Standard is not the way to solve the monetary crisis. Apparently, the IMF and other central banks own approx. 2/3rds of the world's gold supply. By returning to the gold standard at this time, we would be at the mercy and manipulation of these bankers. Also, the film shows that Ben Franklin and other founding fathers felt that the Revolutionary War was fought in part over Great Britain forcing the colonies onto a gold standard and then hoarding their gold through taxation. Instead, the fiat currency the colonies used previously had apparently been a prosperous system.
Rather than adopt a gold standard, the key is to return power of issuing money away from a private bank and back to the US Treasury. The US Treasury notes would be printed interest free and would coincide with a gradual phasing out of fractional reserve banking in the nation's banks.
Here's a summary of the proposed solution put forth by the film:
The film shows that Lincoln's use of this US Treasury Greenback system was an extremely successful and prosperous model. Whereas gold standard-based economies have consistently been manipulated by world banking powers.
I would like to see a detailed rebuttal of this alternative solution to the Federal Reserve if it exists. Any other discussion of various points, strengths and weaknesses, of both approaches would be great.
It seems as if the dual currency proposal Ron Paul wants to offer is a simple bandaid. I am a firm believer in gold and encourage everyone I know to invest in it. But I'm wary of a gold standard with the realization that private bankers have consolidated vast portions of it and can manipulate the value of it as well.
Sometimes I wonder if free market proponents of a gold standard, while they are absolutely courageous and right about exposing the dangers of our Federal Reserve private bank, are acting more in their own self-interest in the desire to remedy the situation with a gold standard. Many of them often heavily invest in the gold market.
I feel like a sound fiat currency issued by the Treasury Dept as the Constitution requires sounds like the better alternative.
