Money Masters Part 1

Originally posted by telerion
Nice find! I didn't think MM would be so desperate as to falsely attribute that quote to Jefferson.

I don't know if that particular quote is accurate as stated, but he did make many other quotes that were just as critical of banking as that one. The Banks were printing so many bank notes that he became alarmed and spoke out against paper money.

http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/ot2www-jeffquot?specfile=/web/data/jefferson/quotations/www/jeffquot.o2w&act=text&offset=782594&textreg=0&query=banking

One quote that cannot be verified as accurate does not mean the makers of the MM intentionally lied. That quote has been around longer than that even if it is a false quote. As for all the other Jefferson quotes in the film, they are indeed accurate. Like this one.

"I sincerely believe... 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." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23

Originally posted by telerion
You're going to have to do better than just "read this link." Provide a summary of the arguments from the links. After all, why should we read your links when you haven't even shown us that you've read them?

This link contains a letter from the GAO listing what they are not allowed to audit. I tried to copy and paste the info but was unable to. It is near the beginning so it is easy to read.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/6320565/Federal-Reserve-Audit

It is not clear when Barry Goldwater made the quote that the accounts of the FED had not been audited. If I knew the year it would be easier to determine if that statement was accurate at that time.

Originally posted by Palynka


Edit - BTW, again, the "yeah, what about this OTHER thing?" defense, which clearly shows any effort to explain anything to them is an exercise in futility.

I bet that any of us asked uzless or Metal Brain his opinion face-to-face they would not have changed one iota of their previous misconceptions.

ffs palynka. When the hell did I ever say that the guy in the film was correct????? Go back and quote it for me.

I tried asking you about the historical info presented in the film and you didn't want to talk about . You only wanted to talk about his theory for a new monetary system to which I said fine. I also said I didn't think his/Friedmans proposal would work.

Where you get this stuff is beyond me. Give your head a shake....or trade it in for a new one. I think your anti-uzless glasses are distorting your vision.

Originally posted by telerion


Anyway this thread is about the factual correctness of MM which has been declared "the best video on [monetary economics]." It is my (and now others) response to Metal Brains claims (and yours too, really) that we couldn't come up with any solid rebuttals. In fact, I believe you asked us in the "the fed" thread for less opinion and more fact. We gi u put of by the fact that they make false claim about the workings of our monetary system?

Anyway this thread is about the factual correctness of MM which has been declared "the best video on [monetary economics]." It is my (and now others) response to Metal Brains claims (and yours too, really) that we couldn't come up with any solid rebuttals. In fact, I believe you asked us in the "the fed" thread for less opinion and more fact. We give you fact and you ask us for more opinion!

In this case, there is no need to discuss facts. The facts have already been established by the historical record. We KNOW that the first US presidents were dead set against setting up a federal reserve system. We KNOW about the Rothchild's. We KNOW how many many many of the world's political leaders commented on some kind of an international banking conspiracy. And we KNOW these world leaders didn't want the money supply coming under private control.

To me, this is much more interesting than some guy with a camera talking about his plan to save the world. The only way to discuss this issue is with opinions based on the FACTS.

Even if you appreciate their telling of history, aren't you put of by the fact that they make false claim about the workings of our monetary system?

NO, as I alluded to above, just because someone makes a few suspect statements, one shouldn't automatically discount EVERYTHING they say later. Older people still have racist, biggotted opinions but it doesn't mean they are wrong all the time. Like I said before, I think the viewer is responsible to take all information presented and decide for themself which information to absorb and which information to discount.

Information comes from the most unlikely sources sometimes. Besides, what else are you going to do with your time on the interweb...watch porn? ):->

(btw, i found the full version on google video)

Originally posted by uzless


Anyway this thread is about the factual correctness of MM which has been declared "the best video on [monetary economics]." It is my (and now others) response to Metal Brains claims (and yours too, really) that we couldn't come up with any solid rebuttals. In fact, I believe you asked us in the "the fed" thread for less opinion and more fact. We g n the interweb...watch porn? ):->

(btw, i found the full version on google video)[/b]

If the first US presidents were dead set against a "federal reserve system" that would make the money supply come under private control, please explain this tidbit of history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Bank_of_the_United_States

Originally posted by telerion
(1:12) "All of our money is based on government debt."

This is not true. The government does not issue debt in order to print money. It simply creates dollars. Most of those dollars go into banks and get loaned out and redeposited multiple times. This causes the money supply to expand beyond the original injection of money. MM makes the mistake of conflating money with government debt throughout its presentation.

Hang on even the Fed website says that they buy up Treasury securities in exchange for the money they release into the system via their 12 regional banks. Given that they do not actually *pay* but merely inject money into the system for which the US Government is indebted to the Fed to the value of those securities plus interest, coupled with the multiplier effect of that money as it is distributed through the 12 regional Feds, suggests that the Fed does create money out of *thin air* and debt is the result of it, debt that is then the responsibility of the US Government (aka we the people) as many so called "fundie nut job conspiracists" are accused of asserting.

Banking 101 says you create new money from nothing when a loan is made and you recoup that amount plus interest. Fractional banking and reserve deposits are safeguards to only limit the amount you create.

I'm not sure how you do explain why/how the FED manages to buy the debt instruments off Treasury to the value of all notes they put into circulation, for no cost other than the cost of printing those notes which by their(the Feds assessment) works out to be about 4 cents for every note. The reserve of the Federal Reserve is the tax paying capacity of the people to pay the interest on the debt that accrues from this wonderful relationship. It is therefore unclear, how just by saying that the US government does not issue debt in order to print money, that can be true, when in fact the Fed itself explains that the central banking system as managed by the Fed, is a money system based on the issue of treasury securities ( ie:- debt.)

Sources:- http://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/fedpoint/fed01.html
{"The distribution of coins differs from that of currency in some respects. First, when the Fed receives currency from the Treasury, it pays only for the cost of printing the notes."}

Originally posted by no1marauder
If the first US presidents were dead set against a "federal reserve system" that would make the money supply come under private control, please explain this tidbit of history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Bank_of_the_United_States

Lol, you cite wikipedia?? I'm not sure which part of your link you are referring to because most of it talks about how most people didn't want it.

Regardles, Ok, if we are going to reduce this to a highschool essay level (is wikipedia even allowed to be cited on research papers??) how about I just toss back at you a wiki link. This is how it starts....


"1791–1836: The First and Second Bank of the United States

First Bank of the United States
Main article: First Bank of the United States

The Founding Fathers were strongly opposed to the formation of a central banking system - the fact that England tried to place the colonies under the monetary control of the Bank of England is seen by many as the 'last straw' of English oppression and that it led directly to the War of Independence.

In 1791, Alexander Hamilton, the Secretary of the Treasury, made a deal to support the transfer of the capital from Philadelphia to the banks of the Potomac in exchange for southern support for his Bank project. As a result, the First Bank of the United States (1791-1811) was chartered by Congress in that same year. The First Bank of the United States was modeled after the Bank of England and differed in many ways from today's central banks. For example, it was partly owned by foreigners, who would share from its profits. It was also not solely responsible for the country's money supply; its share was only 20%, while private banks accounted for the rest. The Bank was bitterly opposed by several founding fathers, including Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, who saw it as an engine for speculation, financial manipulation, and corruption."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_central_banking_in_the_United_States

Originally posted by uzless
Lol, you cite wikipedia?? I'm not sure which part of your link you are referring to because most of it talks about how most people didn't want it.

Regardles, Ok, if we are going to reduce this to a highschool essay level (is wikipedia even allowed to be cited on research papers??) how about I just toss back at you a wiki link. This is how it starts... uption."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_central_banking_in_the_United_States

Your claim was that the first US presidents were dead set against it.

This isn't so; the only you of the first presidents who opposed it was Jefferson. Certainly Washington who signed the original legislation didn't oppose it and Madison eventually agreed to a rechartering of the bank.

Your statement was contrary to the facts.

EDIT: The hypocrisy of someone citing MM and then bitching about the use of wiki is beyond belief. I normally don't use wiki, but those historical facts are so undisputed I thought I'd just use it. If you're going to be a dick about it, I'll get a more detailed source.

Originally posted by no1marauder


This isn't so; the only you of the first presidents who opposed it was Jefferson. Certainly Washington who signed the original legislation didn't oppose it and Madison eventually agreed to a rechartering of the bank.

Your statement was contrary to the facts.

EDIT: The hypocrisy of someone citing MM and then bitching about ...[text shortened]... t I'd just use it. If you're going to be a dick about it, I'll get a more detailed source.

This isn't so; the only you of the first presidents who opposed it was Jefferson. Certainly Washington who signed the original legislation didn't oppose it and Madison eventually agreed to a rechartering of the bank.

Your statement was contrary to the facts.

No it wasn't. The founding fathers stated many times their opposition. The fact they agreed to it doesn't mean they thought it was a good idea. Our current politicians often state their opposition for something but for political reasons go along with it. Also, they quite often make statements after the fact that their decision to approve something was, in hindsight, the wrong decision.


EDIT: The hypocrisy of someone citing MM and then bitching about the use of wiki is beyond belief. I normally don't use wiki, but those historical facts are so undisputed I thought I'd just use it. If you're going to be a dick about it, I'll get a more detailed source.

I never cited MM. The facts i've listed are well known. MM has just taken some of these facts and highlighted. I can't help it if you haven't heard these facts before. They are actually common knowledge, well common knowledge for some of us. Perhaps you are a product of an American education system? If you want weblinks (which should always be taken with a grain of salt) other than MM, here you go. Individually they mean little, but taken together you might begin to get the picture. Or you could just go down to your local library and read a book or two. I have no idea about the legitimacy of these sites. They are just the first ones to pop up on google.

http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Otto.von.Bismarck.Quote.5A70
http://conspiracyrealitytv.com/conspiracy-quotes/
http://evidence-of.blogspot.com/2007/07/famous-quotes-money-banking-federal.html
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=6424
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Woodrow_Wilson#Federal_Reserve_quotes :>
http://land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/federal_reserve.shtml

Originally posted by uzless
[b]

This isn't so; the only you of the first presidents who opposed it was Jefferson. Certainly Washington who signed the original legislation didn't oppose it and Madison eventually agreed to a rechartering of the bank.

Your statement was contrary to the facts.

No it wasn't. The founding fathers stated many times their op #Federal_Reserve_quotes :>
http://land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/federal_reserve.shtml[/b]

So, Washington opposed it but he signed the bill authorizing it????? Don't be such a complete fool.

The "facts" you supposedly present are in regards to some world wide conspiracy of bankers ruling over the entire planet with politicians as their puppets. Yes, there's plenty of books claiming such a thing. If you think it's "common sense" to believe conspiracy theorists making a buck off books for the gullible, you're sadly deluded. I could cite of plenty of books and websites claiming that space aliens are taking rednecks for rides in their ships. I suppose you would accept that as proof of the veracity of those "facts".

Originally posted by no1marauder
So, Washington opposed it but he signed the bill authorizing it????? Don't be such a complete fool.

The "facts" you supposedly present are in regards to some world wide conspiracy of bankers ruling over the entire planet with politicians as their puppets. Yes, there's plenty of books claiming such a thing. If you think it's "common sen heir ships. I suppose you would accept that as proof of the veracity of those "facts".

Sir, you couldn't follow a circle back to where you started.

I gave you websites of THE QUOTES. The quotes are what we are talking about. I didn't post those to say there ACTUALLY is a global consipiracy.

THE QUOTES are real. They were said by real people, real presidents, real historical figures. My question, is WHY DID THEY BELIEVE THIS? These were smart guys. They were in positions of authority to know whether or not this stuff was going on. If it wasn't going on, why would they say it was?

This is the question. Don't answer questions I haven't asked. You are just as bad as palynka. Stop reading into what i've posted. Just answer the damn question.

(Edit: still waiting for your non wiki links "proving" the founding fathers supported the first/second banks despite their quoted statements to the contrary.)

Originally posted by kmax87
Hang on even the Fed website says that they buy up Treasury securities in exchange for the money they release into the system via their 12 regional banks. Given that they do not actually *pay* but merely inject money into the system for which the US Government is indebted to the Fed to the value of those securities plus interest, coupled with the multiplier ...[text shortened]... Fed receives currency from the Treasury, it pays only for the cost of printing the notes."}

You are right. Technically the government does use debt to adjust the monetary base in FOMC meetings. The problem is that when the video talks of government debt, it implies it is the sort of government debt held by the general public so that it appears as if the Fed is somehow enslaving our government through perpetual debt. Since the Fed rebates back to the US Treasury all interest earnings net of costs, this really isn't the same sort of debt at all but rather an expedient instrument for injecting and removing money from the system. In fact, when the government orders the Fed to act in the open market by selling securities it is tightening the money supply (i.e., removing money from the system).

You are correct though. And I was too loose with my statements in this post.

Originally posted by uzless
Sir, you couldn't follow a circle back to where you started.

I gave you websites of THE QUOTES. The quotes are what we are talking about. I didn't post those to say there ACTUALLY is a global consipiracy.

THE QUOTES are real. They were said by real people, real presidents, real historical figures. My question, is WHY DID THEY BELIEVE THIS? These we ...[text shortened]... thers supported the first/second banks despite their quoted statements to the contrary.)

It is not as though all the founding fathers distrusted banks. Alexander Hamilton was crucial to the founding of the First National Bank. Our monetary system would have been a real wreck if Jefferson (as much as I admire him in other ways) had been put in charge of it.

Personally, I see these quotes as indicating that they were less knowledgeable of banking than, for instance Hamilton, and that they distrusted banks in general perhaps because of bad dealings with banks in their past or because of learned stigma. I is my understanding that in many Western societies banking was considered a distasteful profession, well beneath a gentleman.

Originally posted by uzless
Sir, you couldn't follow a circle back to where you started.

I gave you websites of THE QUOTES. The quotes are what we are talking about. I didn't post those to say there ACTUALLY is a global consipiracy.

THE QUOTES are real. They were said by real people, real presidents, real historical figures. My question, is WHY DID THEY BELIEVE THIS? These we ...[text shortened]... thers supported the first/second banks despite their quoted statements to the contrary.)

useless: Edit: still waiting for your non wiki links "proving" the founding fathers supported the first/second banks despite their quoted statements to the contrary.)

I presume that links showing that the Congress voted for the banks and the Presidents signed the legislation will be insufficient?🙄

Originally posted by kmax87
they do not actually *pay* but merely inject money into the system for which the US Government is indebted to the Fed to the value of those securities plus interest...................explain why/how the FED manages to buy the debt instruments off Treasury to the value of all notes they put into circulation, for no cost other than the cost of printing those notes..

There was a Fed source that you can get off their website in downloadable pdf format. Its a publication of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, D.C. and its titled
The Federal Reserve System, PURPOSES & FUNCTIONS(Ninth Edition, June 2005,Library of Congress Control Number 39026719)

The quote given below verifies the apparently nutty assertions of various conspiracist nut jobs, although you have to dig. On page 37 of their pdf publication, under the heading Composition of the Federal Reserve’s Portfolio this little quote.

The overall size of the Federal Reserve’s holdings
of Treasury securities depends principally on the
growth of Federal Reserve notes; however, the
amounts and maturities of the individual securities
held depends on the FOMC’s preferences for liquidity.