[..]
[..]
[..]
From: http://www.philadelphiafed.org/education/teachers/lesson-plans/saturday-sancocho.pdf
(more here: http://cob.jmu.edu/econed/Elementary.htm)
I doubt I could say this about some of the more advanced lesson plans but I don’t really see anything fallacious or objectionable in that particular lesson, though there is one thing I would stress: A money can only come to exist if the good is desirable for a use other than making exchanges. If it isn’t then how does it start being accepted anyway? Though it’s easy to see why they didn’t include this, cause the next obvious question is “What’s a green piece of paper good for?”
This can backstab so hard, the kids can go that one question further, “why is green paper widely accepted”, and they have nothing to say but “because we say so” lol. It’s better for them to stay as basic as possible, so they educate just enough to quench curiosity, but not enough to arm the children with more daring questions.
Notice, the Fed said nothing about money (as used on the US) being the result of coercion. It also left out gold as an example of money used in the past. In typical propaganda style, it contains truth and innocuous facts along with details that are conveniently missing.
Where did the “money” come from to trade the ingredient cards? (Created little strips of paper, I suppose, colored green maybe?) Also, I see you highlighighted the section “they will not be allowed to trade ingredient card for ingredient card”. Very interesting. “Not be allowed”. That is an essential “ingredient” needed for central banking.
By the way, why is the (expletive) Fed putting lesson plans together anyway? Their job is to inflate the currency, not to indoctrinate kids. But, they must start early, so generations of future voters will continue to support the Fed’s actions to “stabilize” the economy.
PhD Fed economists teaching children about money, disturbing to say the least.
Exactly.