I recently read a debate between Edward Griffin (author of The Creature From Jekyll Island) and Bill Still (creator of the documentaries, The Money Masters, and The Secret of Oz). The debate concered two polar opposite ideas:
Using an economic system based on 100% Gold Reserves (Griffin)
or
2 Using an economic system baed on a Government issued medium of exchange. (Still)
I would greatly appreciate it if I could read what people from this forum think. I’m undecided on where I stand when it comes to the question of “What happens when the international bankers own most of the gold? Couldn’t they manipulate the price, thereby still keep the common man in slavery?”
Hmmmmmmm…I read Griffin’s argument months ago and assumed he was right, because he seems to be right about so many things. After reading Still’s argument, I don’t really know what to think. They are both certainly very passionate, and each seems to destroy the argument of the other. I am by no means a monetary theorist. I began learning about the problem from Griffin about a year ago, so basically my opinion is that fiat money is bad, and gold-backed money is the solution.
Until I read more, I have to continue to support Griffin. Here are my superficial reasons why:
Murray Rothbard breaks the tie. Although I haven’t read it, here is Rothbard’s The Case for a 100 Percent Gold Dollar. In my opinion, Rothbard was a genius. Rothbard understood that bankers ruled the world. Rothbard supported gold. Now I have a new incentive to find out why. I also plan to read What Has Government Done to Our Money.
In the About section of Still’s website, The Secret of Oz, he champions William Jenning’s Brian and L. Frank Baum with discovering the solution to our economic woes. First of all, do you think the elite bankers would have let The Wizard of Oz become so popular if it contained hidden symbolism that once interpreted would spell their destruction? Secondly, Rothbard villifies William Jennings Bryan as the guy who changed the Democratic Party from the defenders of individual liberty and classical liberalism into a tool for the bankers and progressivism. This is what lead to the creation of the Federal Reserve! See Rothbard’s article called Origin’s of the Federal Reserve.
Still seems to have way to much faith in government. Anyone who says things like "To me, government is all we have – the best tool to ensure our freedom – the best tool to prevent big bankers from running the show" should not be trusted.
I plan to do more reading, but for now I trust Griffin’s analysis. In fact I wouldn’t be surprised if Still is some sort of controlled opposition from the baking elite!
Leo
p.s. I will now never think of the Wizard of Oz the same way again! Aren’t you supposed to be able to play Pink Floyd’s The Dark Side of the Moon along with the movie also? And one of the songs is “Money!” Wow, I’ve got to try that out sometime! Maybe it’s the key to meaning of the universe!
""What happens when the international bankers own most of the gold? Couldn’t they manipulate the price, thereby still keep the common man in slavery?
So let them own it! I’m serious. It’s just a piece of metal that would become worthless if it seized to do its function as a medium of exchange. There are several fallacies here but one of them being that people work for money. They don’t! Nobody works for money, but for the goods and services that money can buy. So you don’t need to worry about some people taking gold out of circulation. Gold would simply gain in value as less of it remains for exchange, or hypothetically, eventually lose its status as medium of exchange to a different commodity if it ever became too scarcely inconvenient
Besides how does one come to own all the gold? And what is so special about bankers? Why can’t all the bagel and coffee sellers own all the gold?
Actually , I think I know why they’re thinking this (compound interest, debt virus, etc..) but it’s total nonsense.
I tend to sympathize with Griffin on this issue as-well because of the contribution Leo points out from Rothbard. Rothbards book What has government done to out money is magnificant, and I feel as though it is a reputable source to cite for this debate.
From economic theory of supply and demand, it would make sense that if a group of individuals restricted the supply of a commodity, all that would happen would be an increase in the purchasing power of the commodity (or price). However what if these individuals changed the exchange ratio as-well? (from the paper to the actual commodity). I suppose we would be living under tyranny at that point anyway.
“Still points with admiration to some of the darkest days of the American Republic. He praises Lincoln for issuing debt-based money, called Greenbacks, during the Civil War even though this was a blatant violation of the Constitution. His argument is not that this was a desperate expediency required by the urgency of war, but that it was an act of brilliant monetary statesmanship. In a similar vein, he approvingly surveys the early colonial period in which colonial governments resorted to printing-press money without silver or gold backing. It led to disastrous inflation and was devastating to the common man;but he says this was caused, not by flooding the colonies with fiat money, but by England forcing the colonies to STOP the practice! He relies on the words of Benjamin Franklin to support his case, and, indeed, Franklin speaks forcefully. Still does not explain that, although Franklin was an advocate of fiat money in the early years, after the experience of rampant inflation had taught its painful lesson, such a view was in the extreme minority.”
is the common man now safer due to rampant inflation (an increase in the money supply)??
with bank bailouts protectign deposits and mortgages?
the constitution hasnt seemd to matter much since the day it was written.
are there mechanisms now that prevent painful inflation lessons by simply bailing out financial instituions (i have read this is actually taking palce though i cant confirm it) with little to no harmful effects??
disasterous inflation?? devastating effects??? on prices of goods?? does bialing out here and there keep financial operations going with out disasterous effects…only small effects here and there??
p.s. I will now never think of the Wizard of Oz the same way again! Aren’t you supposed to be able to play Pink Floyd’s The Dark Side of the Moon along with the movie also? And one of the songs is “Money!” Wow, I’ve got to try that out sometime! Maybe it’s the key to meaning of the universe!
Yes, “Money” starts to play as the film transitions to color, which was probably very expensive in 1939. But yeah, the entire thing is neat. Try it out sometime.
This thread NEEDS more views and opinions. I’m torn between the two views as well.
Someone quoted a solution from Ellen Brown’s book “Web of Debt” but it sounds the same as still’s argument. Thouughts?
"An alternative to this is a zero reserve. Why would reserves be needed in the first place since money is created out of thin air?
Public credit is the solution. You go to a public institution and borrow money the same way you go to a public libray to borrow a book. Return it when you’re finished.
This wouldn’t be inflationary, because the money goes back where it came from. The difference is that money would always be available to anyone who demonstrates credit-worthiness regardless of the market or any artificial manipulation of interest rates.
This would workon a zero-interest principle, since compound interest eventually devours everything. The employees of the institution would get their paychecks either through a fee paid by the borrower, or have the money created for them to do their jobs.
Instead of banks being beholden to their stockholders, and always in businessfor a profit, they would be created to serve the interests of the public at large.
For a second I thought you quoted: “Public credit is the salvation.” It might as well be given their views. Anyway, how is this not inflationary? It doesn’t make a lick of sense. What else would you expect when you have a zero-interest principle? What the devil?
And LOL at having the money ‘created’ for them to do their jobs. Prosperity does not equal the amount of currency you have in circulation, nor is it the amount you can print. You can’t just print up prosperity from a printing press. You need real capital accumulation.