digg

Join DiggAbout

A History of Fractional Reserve Banking, and Why Monetary Policy Matters watch!

video.google.com — The candidacy of Ron Paul has brought monetary policy back into public consciousness –in particular, his opposition to the Fed appears to many to be strange, as the issue is not commonly known nor understood. This video, though not 100% in agreement with Ron Paul, explains the history of fractional reserve banking and its negative impact on us all.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Berkana, on 12/04/2007, -10/+61This video needs to be seen. Fractional Reserve Banking is fundamentally fraudulent, and is the root of many of our economic woes, but as serious as it is, this issue is hardly understood by the public at large. This issue is more important now than ever, especially with an election year coming up.

    Ron Paul is the only candidate that seems to understand monetary policy. Ignorance of the issue will destroy our economy; it is for our own survival sake that we must elect someone who understands how important sound monetary policy is. All the other candidates don't appear to know the first thing about the matter.

    The issue isn't as simple as the gold standard. (The video concludes that the gold standard isn't really viable at this point in time, which I agree with. Ron Paul's position may differ, but in any case, Ron Paul is more correct than not.) I urge all to watch the video; I can't do it justice here.

    See also the video link titled "Money, Banking, and the Federal Reserve" here:
    http://www.fdrs.org/banking_history.html

    It gives a concise and accurate description of the history and problems fundamental to fractional reserve banking.
    • Berkana, on 12/04/2007, -1/+3Video Link to "Money, Banking, and the Federal Reserve": mms://mises.org/Fed
      (It's a streaming WMV video.)
    • HappyScrappy, on 12/04/2007, -10/+5The Gold Standard isn't workable now. Fractional banking is thus here to stay.
      • PeppermintPig, on 12/04/2007, -5/+3Alternate currencies backed by gold do work, at least when the government isn't committing armed robbery against its purveyors.
      • Berkana, on 12/04/2007, -2/+11You obviously haven't watched the documentary. The documentary is not advocating a gold standard as the only alternative to fractional reserve banking.
        • PeppermintPig, on 12/05/2007, -3/+2I watched the video. The viewer suggests that we need a central money system. We do not.

          The gold standard can benefit the bankers, but it is secondary to using fiat notes. Why worry about gold when you can change interest rates at will?

          There are two evils highlighted in this video: Central Bankers and Government itself. Each can hurt the people, or work together and hurt the people.
        • xTRUMANx, on 12/05/2007, -2/+3But which would you rather have? A government that constantly changes every few years, who if they found at fault of hurting the people, would not expect re-election, or a group of businessmen control the country's money supply. Also, alternate currencies backed by gold wouldn't work since most of the gold has been hoarded by a small group of people. To return to a gold standard would be giving the power back to the banks. As Berkana said, you obviously haven't watched the documentary. Can't blame you though, 3:35 minutes is no piece of cake.
        • PeppermintPig, on 12/05/2007, -0/+3I saw the entire thing and understand the problem clearly. Gold has intrinsic value, so it cannot be manipulated the same way fiat currency is. People who are smart will diversify their assets. Silver and gold.
      • alvinrod, on 12/05/2007, -2/+5No one's advocating a gold standard. It's a possible solution, but as the video points out, not necessarily a good one. However, keeping a horribly broken system is not a good idea in the slightest.
      • dracostimpy, on 12/05/2007, -0/+5How can a goldbug like myself possibly refute such a fine argument as that? The gravitas you added with "thus" really cements the certitude with which you make your statement. I find your toilet-paper-as-money ideas fascinating, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
      • chaosium, on 12/05/2007, -3/+2Actually the gold standard will NEVER work.
      • rune420, on 12/05/2007, -2/+2If not the gold standard, then at least consider a public governmental central bank, instead of a privately owned one. Control of the money supply should be decided by a democratic process.
        • HappyScrappy, on 12/05/2007, -1/+3Yeah. the government sure knows how to run things right.
        • HappyScrappy, on 12/05/2007, -1/+3You want the person on the street to decide on the money supply? They don't know *****. They can't even ELECT A PRESIDENT RIGHT.
    • hardcrocodile, on 12/04/2007, -1/+7I know you shouldn't quote Wikipedia for information, but it's written so well:

      "A small but vocal group of people advocate for a return to the gold standard (the elimination of the dollar's fiat currency status and even of the Federal Reserve Bank). Their argument is basically that monetary policy is fraught with risk and these risks will result in drastic harm to the populace should monetary policy fail.

      Most economists disagree with returning to a gold standard. They argue that doing so would drastically limit the money supply, and throw away 100 years of advancement in monetary policy. The sometimes complex financial transactions that make big business (especially international business) easier and safer would be much more difficult if not impossible. Moreover, shifting risk to different people/companies that specialize in monitoring and using risk can turn any financial risk into a known dollar amount and therefore make business predictable and more profitable for everyone involved."

      (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetary_policy)
      • Richandler, on 12/04/2007, -4/+1There are only 6 citations in that miserable article on wikipedia. Our monetary policy we have here now is 400 years old not 100. We didn't adopt it initially because we knew horrible and corrupt. And largely what is confused in the statement is that profits equal value. 50 years ago you could buy a burger for a nickel. Just imagine if you invested and got 3.00 out of .05. The money increased 60x over, but you still can only buy the burger. A mix of currency is ideal. All crashes have been directly cause by the Federal Reserve Bank if you just look into the deep history about it.
  • internjack, on 12/04/2007, -14/+32Ron Paul knows what to do. This Doctor knows Best!
    • Berkana, on 12/04/2007, -2/+14I back Ron Paul, but I don't think a full gold standard is the answer. The reason is, the control of the money supply would instantly fall into the hands of those who control the gold reserves. Back in the days when money was backed by precious metals, the gold-standardists opposed the monetization of silver, because silver was more plentiful, and because it would break their monopoly on the money supply. I can't go into all the details here, but the video does. (It's over 3 hours long for a reason, but every minute of it is worth watching.)

      Between the 100% gold standard advocated by Ron Paul and all the MIeses institute folks, and the solution proposed in the video, which is still a fiat-money system, but not in the control of private bankers, and without the inflationary layers set up by the Fed between itself and commercial banks (See the video entitled "money, banking, and the federal reserve" link here: http://www.fdrs.org/banking_history.html ), the solution proposed in the video is likely to be more sound. There are a few inaccuracies in the "Money, Banking, and the Federal Reserve" video that are covered in the documentary posted in this digg submission. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560 ... )

      Ron Paul is right to oppose the Federal Reserve system, but if he attempts to go onto a 100% gold backed monetary system, what he'll find is a sharply contracted money supply. As I see it, the only viable way to do this is for him to carry out what the video suggests. The transition could be disastrous if done wrong, but I still support Ron Paul because compared to all the other candidates, he's a step in the right direction.

      The documentary is over 3 hours long, but it is worth watching all the way through. I urge all to watch it.
      • Chris_F, on 12/04/2007, -3/+13Watch the video to see why a gold standard hasn't worked in the past and why it will do nothing to solve our problems today. Our problem isn't that we use paper money that's not backed by gold, it's that our government borrows money from the Federal Reserve which is a non-government corporation who's only interest is their own gain. They control our dollar and they will break it as well if we don't do anything to stop them.
        • Berkana, on 12/04/2007, -3/+5Exactly! ^_^
          Good. At least one person here gets it.

          Anyone up for writing a letter to Ron Paul to inform him of an alternative to the gold standard while still doing away with the Fed? Digg if you are up for this. I don't want to be the only one!
        • ScornedPatriot, on 12/04/2007, -1/+4@Berkana
          Damn broke digg replies.

          Ron Paul would like to see Gold and Silver back alternative currencies competing with the dollar, he just did an interview about this. That way the Fed can't continue to cut interest rates for their corporate interests causing the dollar to lose value robbing the American public of their savings value. Currency like the Liberty Dollar (that the FBI just raided and shut down). That way the dollar competes on the open market, like we already compete with the Euro, if the Feds do something drastic and the dollar falls in value people can shift earnings to a competing currency. It would be nothing but good for the system to break the monopoly currently held by the Fed.
          • PeppermintPig, on 12/04/2007, -1/+2While government doesn't exactly respond to market forces, it consistently seeks ways to grab at money sources from soft targets with the least protection or lobbying interest representation.

            The Federal Reserve makes a lot of money for its friends above and beyond its ability to maintain the basic infrastructure of printing.

            At least with the gold standard, in practice, the government couldn't make any significant gains on it... and that's the problem for bureaucrats and politicians: It doesn't advance their careers or expand their bank accounts as much as they'd like. That's just how greedy they are.

            I don't believe Ron Paul can solve the problem entirely, since what we need is market competition from gold and silver backed money. I do believe Paul can cut ties with the FR, then work with congress to gut the books of unconstitutional tax law and MAYBE implement a better US currency.
        • LeeSoong, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1http://libertydollararrest.blogspot.com/

          The feds shut down the Liberty Dollar Silver and Gold...
      • BESTenemy, on 12/04/2007, -2/+1Gold standard makes segregation possible and through that manipulation of rates, similar to the way it is done with fiat currency supply expansion and contraction by the FED. However, the issue at hand is that we're paying the interest to the FED on their currency. We need to have our own government issued currency instead - something with solid backing. Something that can't be manufactured out of thin air. Gold has real value. It is a precious metal. It can be shaped into a coin for convenience, or be represented with a paper bill, as long as it can be exchanged for the face amount of gold at any time. Fiat money has an arbitrary value that can be inflated at will by the issuer. Gold supply can be contracted to generate shortages for the sake of increasing its value, but at least its supply cannot be expanded indefinitely. You can't issue more gold coins than you have gold.

        We are faced with inflation - the devaluation of our dollar. Gold standard has limitations, but in our situation is it a much better alternative to FED's greenbacks. Silver is even better as there's more of it accumulated on the US soil. If we are to seek advantage in the market place, then might as well use something we have more of and can leverage, when dealing with imports and exports.
      • dracostimpy, on 12/05/2007, -0/+3The Constitution says gold OR silver can be coined as money, so Ron Paul is not advocating a 100% gold-standard.

        In fact, I'm sure he'd support an amendment to include palladium, platinum, copper, land and heads of cattle as currency too, because the essential point of precious metals as currency is that they have actual utilitarian value just as do cows or land. Precious metals have been settled on as money by societies throughout history simply because coins are easier to carry in your pocket than diapers or heads of cattle.

        Paper money is worthless for the same reason grains of sand are worthless; there's no limit to how much you can create. COULD paper money work? Certainly... All you have to do is find leaders who will print ONLY the exact amount of money to offset the labor output, not a cent more or less, and then you'll have a 100% stable dollar. Until the Flying Spaghetti Monster comes down from heaven to rule the world, however, there's not a single entity I would possibly trust to accurately handle that; certainly not the Fed and their bungling fartknockers.

        Given that we cannot possibly trust any human being with that kind of control as has been proven every time it's ever been attempted, we have NO better option than to use commodities with real intrinsic value as money. If you don't like gold or silver, that's fine; just tell me what's easier to use as money instead of PMs that has true utilitarian value.
        • dracostimpy, on 12/05/2007, -0/+1Oops... I missed one of the "diapers" that I changed to "land" after reading it and thinking to myself "diapers are pretty much just paper too". Anyhow, I think I made my point.
    • thinsoldier, on 12/05/2007, -2/+2I've already seen this one. The first time I heard anything about the Fed come out of RP's mouth I just knew he's going to be assassinated if there's a chance he'll win. He won't serve 3 months in office.
      • aduzik, on 12/05/2007, -3/+1He won't serve 3 minutes in office because he's not going to win.
  • Chris_F, on 12/04/2007, -3/+25Watched the first hour, but I'm tired, so I'll leave the rest for later. Even though it's long and looks like it's from the late 90's the information is very good and still 100% relative to our situation today. I'd suggest watching this. Hopefully we will put a stop to the Federal Reserve and fractional-reserve banking, which I think should be a crime and those people who exploit millions of people for their own monetary gain should be arrested.
    • MrXfromPlanetX, on 12/05/2007, -2/+2Be sure to watch Money, Banking and the Federal Reserve http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-466210540 ...

      This video has an interview with Ron Paul, is 42 minutes long, and was produced by Mises.org I bought a copy to loan out to people, like elderly people who tend to vote. I've been trying to get permission to mass produce this DVD say through ronpauldvd.com, but I haven't heard back :-(
    • Berkana, on 12/05/2007, -0/+2If you find that video too long, there's an excellent shorter animated video that covers the mechanics of our debt based monetary system without going into hundreds of years of history and drama:

      Our Debt Based Money System and its consequences
      http://www.digg.com/business_finance/Our_Debt_base ...

      Digg it up, bring this to people's attention. This needs to be heard!
  • odigity, on 12/04/2007, -3/+13It's not just about "conspiracy theories". Part of the reason this continues to go on is because most of the members of congress simply do not understand anything about monetary policy, and so don't realize anything is wrong or don't care to pay attention. (Ron Paul being an obvious exception.)
    • Berkana, on 12/04/2007, -3/+5Indeed, anyone looking out to manipulate things towards their own best interests on the down low could be called a "conspirator" of sorts. It's no surprise that the bankers have done that, as have just about any organization with an agenda (feminists, Mormons, Scientologists, Mac users, you name it). "Conspiracy theory" has become such an epithet that people almost automatically stop taking things seriously once the label is applied, which is a real shame.
  • facelogic, on 12/04/2007, -5/+12three+ hours... Does anyone have the cliff's?
    • demiurgency, on 12/04/2007, -3/+5it's worth watching in it's entirety. i watched it just last week.
    • Berkana, on 12/04/2007, -0/+3Here is a shorter video exposing the problems of fractional reserve banking, but there are some crucial inaccuracies: http://mises.org:88/Fed
      They point out the problems with inflation of colonial/continental script, but didn't tell about the time when that system worked, before abuses ruined it. They also misrepresented Abraham Lincoln's "Greenback" financing of the civil war, by not telling about how it succeeded, and how the bankers tried to kill it.

      The Ludwig von Mieses school of thought is anti-Federal Reserve for the right reasons, but proposes a gold standard and no central bank, which has some serious problems, covered in the long documentary "Money Masters". The 3 hour long video I submitted suggests another approach. See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Money_Masters#Mon ...

    • richmomz, on 12/04/2007, -3/+3Here's the short-short version: Fractional Reserve Banking = Legalized Ponzi Scheme.
      Now go watch the full video and learn something.
  • NoTiG, on 12/04/2007, -6/+17What is amazing is that banks charge interest as their service... you go to get a loan, they create the money from nothing.. charge you interest.. and you have to pay this interest back that, with even with inflation considered... it can be twice the principal they loaned out. And all they did was alter an electronic ledger for this "service" . There is no more clever way to enslave someone than economically like the banks have.

    Nice video but the solution is interest free loans http://teslam.net/me.htm
    • fonebone2, on 12/04/2007, -3/+10Spoken like someone who fails to understand the first principles of banking, which have been known for centuries if not millenia. Their "service" is assuming the risk that you won't be able to pay back the money you borrowed - a risk which, considering the current state of our economy, is quite substantial.
      • Richandler, on 12/04/2007, -6/+2People will always pay back if they are under contract. The point that is made is that instead of being progressive and allowing money to be temporarily borrowed and then given back is that the interest has to come out of nowhere. Where does that interest come from? The only way you can pay it back is if someone else takes out an loan with interest. Then the money gets to you. Then they have to pay back interest with money that doesn't exist and another loan must be taken out. It's a perpetual cycle. It doesn't end and the devalue of currency is the side effect. Pennies used to actually buy you stuff. Now they are completely useless.
        • fonebone2, on 12/04/2007, -1/+8"People will always pay back if they are under contract."
          WHAT?!?! People can't pay back their loans if they don't have any ***** money! Are you claiming that no one has ever defaulted on a loan? What do you think happened to the subprime mortgage market? Weren't those people "under contract?" Sheesh.
        • chaosium, on 12/05/2007, -2/+3"People will always pay back if they are under contract."

          This.

          This is why Libertopia is a ***** joke.
        • NoTiG, on 12/05/2007, -0/+1Sounds like someone didn't visit the link I provided for a slightly more in depth discussion than just a sentence. This "risk" you speak of is nothing compared to the profit that the banks make. Not to mention that if the risk was simply ignored, then the price we would pay for this risk would mathematically be the lowest possible through inflation. There is no need to have a middle man to act as a broker of insurance.
      • GMorgan, on 12/04/2007, -1/+1Yes but they invent money. Fine they can make large sums because of the risk. What they shouldn't be allow to do is make money out of thin air and then charge interest on it. Why can they invent money and not myself, they don't need to take on any risk then and I don't need their money.
        • fonebone2, on 12/04/2007, -0/+2They're not making money out of thin air. They're creating value. If I use $1 worth of gasoline to come to your home and fix your plumbing, then charge you $100 for my work, did I "create $99 out of thin air?" Of course not - I provided a service, and in doing so I created wealth. Banks do exactly the same thing, and if you don't want their service you don't have to use it.
          • GMorgan, on 12/05/2007, -0/+1No they actually invent the money before they give it to you. I'm not talking about interest, I'm talking about the fact that the money they give you did not come from any store and didn't exist before they give it to you. This is what fractional reserve banking is, banks invent money out of thin air then give it to you in loans.

            If a bank took money from their own accounts and loaned it out then it'd be fine. They don't.
    • schmagekie, on 12/04/2007, -1/+3Interest free loans.... ahahhaha!
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_value_of_money
      • Richandler, on 12/04/2007, -2/+1This directly assumes inflation. Don't you think it's wrong that you could earn 10,000 today and in 30 years it will lose over half its value? Inflation is robbery. It takes away the value of your money and inflation proof currency includes gold and silver. Allow people to use it as money and smart people will immediately buy into it. If you bought gold 7 years ago you are standing to make double your money in the next year or two. This was know, by any decent economist.
      • Christ0s, on 12/05/2007, -0/+1something i thought was interesting is that in islamic countries its illegal to charge interest on any loans. So all their banks work on entirely different principles.
        • aduzik, on 12/05/2007, -0/+1Yeah, so in an Islamic mortgage you rent the house from the bank *and* pay down the principal. It's hardly any different from paying interest. Islamic law simply prohibits usury, so banks worked this out as an alternative.
    • Berkana, on 12/04/2007, -2/+1. . . and if you can't pay back, they foreclose on everything and take it all. What a bum deal, huh? It's even worse than just that. . . as you'll see if you watch the documentary.
    • imro, on 12/05/2007, -0/+1First of all, just because you don't understand basic principles, it doesn't mean there is some kind of miracle going on behind the scenes - that is how religion is started. No bank (besides maybe federal reserve bank) pulls money out of thin air. They get them from deposits or loans from other banks.
      Secondly, every time you take a loan, inflation works for you, not for the bank. Only if you opted for variable rate, bank will get you by adapting it.
  • omegaredIX, on 12/04/2007, -4/+13Three hours, damn. Very long watch here I come. Looks like its worth it though.
  • KidDynamo0, on 12/04/2007, -5/+7I watched this at my last job (nothing to do all day) and I gotta say it is very good. Makes you take a real look at the Federal Reserve. Also all the Ron Paul supporters need to take note about supporting a gold standard for our money, this is discussed near the end of the film.
    • Richandler, on 12/04/2007, -1/+3You have much more to learn about monetary policy that just a 3 hour video before you can make any claims.
      • chaosium, on 12/05/2007, -1/+1These people have obviously spent a great deal of time to come to the wrong conclusion.
    • NeonElixir, on 12/05/2007, -2/+2We had a gold standard once. We abandoned it. Returning to it would not be a good idea.
  • shcforward, on 12/04/2007, -7/+6There is some good info in this. About Ron Paul, well...his stance on finance and especially the Federal Reserve is the one thing I am really not comfortable about. Sure, constitutionally, Congress has the right to control monetary policy. But that would be a mess. Interest rates would be lowered right before every election and increased right afterwards. That, and politicians don't know anything about economics. They'll lie and tell you they do, but 99 out of 100 of them just don't get it. The Fed (for all the woes that the tin-foil hat people claim) has done a lot of good, especially in the last 30 years when we've started to get more reliable models to predict how Fed changes will affect the economy.
    • Richandler, on 12/04/2007, -3/+3Lowering interest rates increases the money supply. If you increase the money supply you have inflation. If you teach people how that works people will understand these moves when done by the government. Ron Paul is for competing currencies, which basically means if one is performing better, like gold and silver is right now, then you could keep your money in that instead of Federal Reserve Notes which have lost a ton of their value in just he last 5 years. Economic models have known how the Fed works over 60 years ago. The problem is no one listens when someone speaks out against the status quo.
      • JigoroKano, on 12/05/2007, -0/+2Only if you increase the money supply faster than the market of goods and services is growing, then will you have inflation. If your market is growing, and ours is, then it is natural to increase the money supply. This is why nobody uses the gold standard any more. The gold supply doesn't grow with the market and thus currency based upon gold stifles the market.
        • thinsoldier, on 12/05/2007, -0/+1which is why ron paul wants multiple, competing currencies.
          • JigoroKano, on 12/05/2007, -0/+1Americans can't even convert to the metric system.

            Not that I think that's a bad idea. I'd probably use loonies or euros.
        • MrFunions, on 12/05/2007, -0/+1What you say is somewhat correct, but it involves a false assumption. And that assumption is that we can expand the money supply at the rate that the market of goods and services is growing. Greenspan himself has said that it's impossible to know how the economy is going to react to any FED adjustments because he can't know the emotional reaction of the populace. Gold has been proven over centuries to be a stable currency, whereas paper has not. We have only truly been off the gold standard since the 70s and one look at the growth in money supply will tell you that this has not helped. Currency based upon gold will not stifle the market because the prices in the market adjust relative to the money supply. It actually doesn't matter how much money you have in the system because prices adjust based upon the purchasing power. Notice the differences in the world market currencies and how much they buy. This doesn't change if you have a gold currency. The market would adjust the prices to how much a gold note can buy.
    • floejoe, on 12/04/2007, -5/+3OMG I can't believe you spoke out against Ron Paul, what the *****? Away with you! Digg does not tolerate opposing opinions. Digg smash! Digg will digg you down.
    • ronar, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1You are right. Let me explain the reason for that from an economic view. There is a short-term inverse relationship between (unexpected) money inflation and unemployment. That means that the government would increase the money supply to increase inflation, which in turn heats up the economy and thus there will be a positive short term effect on unemployment, called the Phillips curve (or the more modern one the 'expectations-augmented Phillips curve). But over time the unemployment will revert back to its original state while the higher inflation stays.
      Governments have done that in the past (for reasons such as elections, re-elections etc), which have resulted in long-term high inflation, which is damaging. That is one of the reasons why a central bank should stay independent from government, because governments tend to ***** things up.
      This post is obviously too short to explain the matter in detail as the phillips-curve is a complicated matter and has been modified over time because the original theory doesn't hold anymore (it did in the past, but now that it is known it doesn't have the same effects anymore, but more modern theories still do). Check Wikipedia for details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillips_curve
    • COinOR, on 12/04/2007, -0/+2"...politicians don't know anything about economics..." agreed, but only because we elected them (maybe because the general public doesn't know anything about economics). it's a vicious cycle...
  • Richandler, on 12/04/2007, -4/+8Most people know nothing about money at all. This maybe painfully long but it is worth watching and learning about money.
    • PeppermintPig, on 12/05/2007, -0/+2It's a good video, but not entirely accurate. The one drawback is that it assumes government is always there to do good so long as it acts to oppose the bankers. How did it become a monopoly in the first place? Government. Politicians, good or bad, often cede their authority in ignorance.

      After watching this video, you may become a greater fan of Jackson, and even more confused about Lincoln.
    • Berkana, on 12/05/2007, -0/+1Here's a shorter video better suited for people's short attention spans: (And it's animated too!)

      Our Debt Based Money System and its consequences
      http://www.digg.com/business_finance/Our_Debt_base ...
  • waynetheman, on 12/04/2007, -8/+4Waaaaaay too long. It really shouldn't take 3 hours plus to explain this. Isn't there some reasonably-lengthed explanation online somewhere?
    • thinsoldier, on 12/05/2007, -1/+2no.
      The video explains the attempted creation of previous versions of the Fed and the history of who was behind it, who stopped it, why, what the Fed backers did to retaliate, who they assassinated, how a handful of politicians snuck the Fed into existance while the rest of congress was on vacation....etc etc etc... there's a lot of interesting history behind it all.
      • PeppermintPig, on 12/05/2007, -0/+1Explain the history of the world in 1 minute, then hand me my diploma. lol..
  • CanIGetAWitness, on 12/04/2007, -2/+5Yes, over 3 hours, but very, very engrossing.
    If you want to shorten it up, watch the first 10 minutes then skip to about the 1 hour point. One doesn't need to start with the Roman days, but you will def want to pick it up after the dark ages.
    It will be like a good book that you can't put down.
  • KhanneaSuntzu, on 12/04/2007, -7/+3It is ridiculous what you americans are willing (conditioned) to put up with. Let me give the citizens of the us a HINT:
    http://www.knightsedge.com/medieval-weapons/mediev ... - it worked in france !
    • Lisztman, on 12/04/2007, -1/+4Yeah, remind me. For which of the 10+ french revolutions did this work effectively?
      And if by work, you mean put Napoleon into power, then you are absolutely correct!
  • sprshrp, on 12/04/2007, -2/+1For more information about fiat paper money and the federal reserve, check out Foster's blog at http://www.localbizblogs.com/fostercoinstamp
    • sonk, on 12/05/2007, -0/+0Nice. I have a copy of Fiat Paper Money. Great book. It's the most comprehensive history of paper currency out there. It opened my eyes to the predictable pattern of fiat money instruments. They never work.
  • themoop78, on 12/04/2007, -4/+10This is the most important video I have ever watched. Governments aren't controlled by the people, they are bought by the international bankers. And politicians that don't concede to these bankers are taken out.

    There is no such thing as history as we know it, because history has been dictated by a small group of elitests whose only goal in this world is to perpetuate greed and to rob the world blind.

    We were all sold down the river decades ago. It's about time we start waking up to this fact. Please take the time to watch the whole video. I was once blind, but now I see.
    • DamnLogins, on 12/05/2007, -0/+1I couldn't agree with you more. I had a kind of hazy idea about how money worked, but this video really makes it clear. It was well worth the 3.5 hours. I'd even say it was one of the best 3.5 hours of video I've seen this year.

      The funny thing was though that it appeared to date from before the 1996 election. It is still amazingly relevant though.
  • JimmyIkon, on 12/04/2007, -6/+1The opening line is "why can't the government get [it's citizen's] debt under control?" Can anyone tell me what's wrong with this line? If so you are well on your way to understanding fundamental difference between democrats and republicans.
    • ronar, on 12/04/2007, -0/+2I haven't watched the video yet (as it is 3+ hours and I have a deadline soon...) but isn't it possible that the uncontrolled citizen debt is more of a cultural problem? In most of Europe (excluding the UK) there is no such problem. I would say that it is a culture of hyper-materialism that causes such problems, people wanting to have stuff and have it now. In Switzerland (where I'm from) for instance, we all learn from a very young age (I dare say indoctrinated) by our parents and schools that you should work hard and save money. It would never even cross my mind to buy something I don't have the money for. I would save money up until I have enough to buy it in cash. Only exceptions for debt would be a house (which I don't really consider an investment if I lived in it) and maybe for a car (which most people lease).
      • chaosium, on 12/05/2007, -1/+1"isn't it possible that the uncontrolled citizen debt is more of a cultural problem? In most of Europe (excluding the UK) there is no such problem"

        These people want to "solve" this with "Free Market economics", which is pretty much the antithesis of what works in Europe. You are correct, but they're by no means interested.
        • PeppermintPig, on 12/05/2007, -1/+1Heavy taxation "works"?
          • chaosium, on 12/05/2007, -1/+1Apparently so!
          • PeppermintPig, on 12/05/2007, -0/+1Then by your logic, we should take it to its ultimate conclusion, 100% taxation.

            I don't want a part in your slave utopia.

            I'll pay for services via consentual agreement.
          • ronar, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1Actually the taxation in Switzerland is quite low, some states are even considered a tax haven. If you optimize your taxes, you shouldn't pay more than 30%. The EU has heavily criticized Switzerland for having favourable taxes for foreigners, some pay less than 3% of their income (Michael Schumacher and many other foreigners, such as Rothschilds and the owners of Heineken, Lego, C&A, Ikea and many other businesses, who live in Switzerland).
          • PeppermintPig, on 12/07/2007, -0/+1Taxes are only part of the issue. Lego has been closing down its factories and opening up new ones in China. Regulation and taxes are hurting the people and businesses.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 12/04/2007, -1/+2Well, supply-side economics and cheap "debt" were much of the force behind all the citizens getting in debt in the first place. So it stands to reason that the debt was intentional to placate the masses while the money was made at the top.
  • RossDuprey, on 12/04/2007, -2/+3I have watched this three hour program more than three different times. I really enjoy it. There are many other programs that talk about the same subject also. Search for them on google, there are a few that are this program only broken into three one hour long segments.
  • Gastrodamus, on 12/04/2007, -12/+7This is only surprising and worrisome to simpletons.

    Do you ever look around and wonder why everyone isn't running for the hills because of some amazing revelation you learned from watching a video or reading an article you saw on Digg? Why everyone isn't supporting Ron Paul?

    Here's a hint: it's not because everyone else is stupid and you're the smart one.

    There are also people out there wondering why everyone isn’t sending their bank account information to Nigerians who intend to give them a piece of their found wealth.

    Don’t be so gullible.
    • bobbybobington, on 12/04/2007, -2/+8Monetary policy is complex, don't naively believe anything you hear. Learn the counterarguments the pros and cons of both sides before you make up your mind.
    • leolll, on 12/04/2007, -3/+7"This is only surprising and worrisome to simpletons." Oh, you mean people like Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Jackson, etc.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 12/04/2007, -1/+6I notice all those links and clear-cut logic you put into that Rebuttal that starts off talking about "simpletons."
      Nice drive-by on the facts -- but do you have a point?
  • ZenFountain, on 12/04/2007, -2/+7Good luck to the average worker wanting a mortgage loan without the evil fractional reserve banking system.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 12/04/2007, -1/+2It makes it easier to get the loan with the system we have. It isn't the only way to do this, which you seem to imply.
      The federal government makes the same loans available to first-time homeowners for about 4% interest, that the sub-prime lenders were targeting. The default rate for the low cost government program is 3% (just above the 2.5% average) while the sub-prime default rate is around 25%. The government isn't "factoring" anything on those loans.
      All factoring is, is a clever way to allow a business to "make" money, the factoring rate is a balance of risk to the extended debt. When you let factoring go from 5x deposits, to 10x deposits, and now have 50 year mortgages -- I think it's a bit out of wack.
    • Berkana, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the consequences of fractional reserve banking. It may enable those who shouldn't be getting loans to get loans, but their loans, enabled by the monetization of debt, often result in foerclosures more than successful home ownership. Foreclosure due to rocking of the economy by the banks, enabled by fractional reserve baking, is not good for the average worker. Neither is inflation, which destroys the value of the worker's savings; inflation need not happen. It is a consequence of the mechanism of inflating the money supply built into the fractional reserve banking system.

      See BBC's graphical explanation of the sub-prime mortgage crisis to understand why this is so. Some of the graphics are interactive; play around with them for more info: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7073131.stm?sr ...
  • JimmyIkon, on 12/04/2007, -1/+3This video would have you think that the fed being private is the result of some conspiracy. Anyone care to speculate what would happen if we put the fed in the hands of a partisan government?
    • jmpeagle, on 12/04/2007, -1/+2I think they are against the whole idea of a central bank...the Fed wouldn't exist
    • Richandler, on 12/04/2007, -1/+5It was created by a vote of 3 congressmen....
    • Berkana, on 12/04/2007, -1/+5It is a result of a conspiracy. See the documentary, about the Jekyll Island meeting between the bankers that prepared the way for the establishment of the Federal reserve.

      Okay, so you don't like the term "conspiracy". Fine. It was a result of a secret meeting of special interests trying to manipulate the laws to secure their interests at the expense of others. In other words, a conspiracy.
      • PeppermintPig, on 12/05/2007, -0/+2Conspiracy has gotten a bad reputation, but it's accurately applied.

        The autonomy of the individual is in jeopardy, whether by a private bank, or a government official seeking to restrain our economic prosperity.
  • petomni, on 12/04/2007, -10/+6sounds like an unbiased look at the subject .... hhaha i cant hold in the laughter
  • thadudesbro, on 12/04/2007, -10/+5Buried for inaccuracies and misstatements. And given the length of the video, I have a feeling I'm one of the few that bothered to sit through it, while everyone else dugg it because "Ron Paul" was in the description.
    • themoop78, on 12/04/2007, -1/+3Please elaborate on the "inaccuracies and misstatements", as everything presented in this documentary is presented with historical evidence and quotes of hundreds of reputable figures.
      • JimmyIkon, on 12/04/2007, -6/+2it would take too long.
        • Richandler, on 12/04/2007, -1/+4Which only proves you wrong.
          • JimmyIkon, on 12/04/2007, -3/+3A better way to put it is that this video is bias. Every system has its faults, but they don't talk about the benefits. Can you think of a benefit to making the fed a private (non govt) entity? If not this conversation is over.
      • thadudesbro, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1the video continually refers to fractional reserve banking as creating money. It doesn't, its a misstatements used to deceive. Banks have found that generally most people only use 2% of their deposits at one time. You personally might go in and withdraw all your money in your account, however at the same time someone else is depositing all of their money back into the bank.
        More directly if you do withdraw all your money, and then go spend it, that money is going to go back into another bank, in the account of whom ever you had spent your money with.
        The amount of "float" which is the difference between what is deposited in a bank, and what is actually being used is only about 2%. In the US the reserve is supposed to be around 10% in checking accounts, but in practice it ends up much lower, most banks in the rest of the world leave their reserve rates much lower.

        If everyone were to try to withdraw their money at one time it leads to a bank run, like those seen in the 1930s.

        The other roughly 98% of the money that is deposited in a bank are then lent out. This is money that is being created, it is just transfered. The bank makes money by paying a lower interest rate on deposits than it receives from its loans, less it risk of loss. The bank hasn't created money, it has just temporarily transfered it, which I think is something that the video keeps particularly vauge.

        There are risks involved with banking. The bank runs in the 1930s are one example, the S&L crisis of the early 90s are another. But a lot of good has come from banking, and that is never pointed out. Peter Drucker, in "Management Challenges of the 21st Century" call retail banking the greatest development of the 20th century. Your house, your car, and nearly everything you buy are only possible because of this relationship of borrowing and lending. Even if you personally didn't buy your food on credit. At some point in the supply chain various degrees of financing were used in order to get the food to you. The movie never discusses this point.

        The movie is correct that a fiat system of exchange has never lasted. And while it is correct that gold has maintained its value throughout history, the monetary systems built on gold have all collapsed too. No one is using Phoenician coins these days, regardless of how much gold they were backed by. The same holds true for Roman and Babylonian currencies.

        Just some thoughts.
  • jmpeagle, on 12/04/2007, -2/+4what are you peasants going to do about it...nothing
  • HappyScrappy, on 12/04/2007, -2/+3Godwin's law in the first 30 seconds.
  • Gendolookin, on 12/04/2007, -3/+4Everyone should watch this video...Although I think some of the "conspiracy" parts are a little too much, the economic part of the video is very good....
  • Gastrodamus, on 12/04/2007, -4/+6What is money anyway? Why do we place so much value on green paper and even gold and silver? We need to take the US back to a system of barter. Where if you want a new car you carry on your back enough corn or hog bellies to pay for it. That's the only way to avoid the conspiracy.

    At least that's what the voices in my head tell me.
    • PeppermintPig, on 12/05/2007, -2/+1A barter system would work. It wouldn't work great, depending on what you were using or who was doing the bartering, but it would work. After all, barter is essentially non coin or paper money. Which is why people want a viable money system for the sake of convenience. A barter good is essentially money in non-coin or paper form.
  • JimmyIkon, on 12/04/2007, -8/+41. Money is not free. 2. No one is making you barrow money.
    • Richandler, on 12/04/2007, -1/+4So the tax dollars we pay for the 9 trillion dollars of debt we have isn't borrowed money?
      • JimmyIkon, on 12/04/2007, -2/+2I see your point. we sould dump the income tax, go to a consumption tax, and cut spending by making the govt smaller and more private.
        • xTRUMANx, on 12/05/2007, -0/+2Taxation is a terrible solution as it doesn't stop the problem which is borrowing. I would attempt to explain this to you but judging by your grammar and spelling in both of your comments, economic discussion is likely to make your head explode and I don't want to be no murderer.
          • JimmyIkon, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1The fact that you have to resort to ad hominem attacks because of spelling and grammar ON A FRIGGIN MESSAGE BOARD is the sad thing. And you should get an award for realizing that excessive barrowing is a major issue. You must have gone to Harvard or something. I am not worthy to even speak with someone of such elite intellect.
    • Berkana, on 12/05/2007, -1/+3It is precisely the fact that "money isn't free" that makes fractional reserve banking so dangerous. The bank makes money up as if it were free to finance things the government doesn't want to raise taxes for (such as the war in Iraq, which has cost us more than $500 billion dollars, while Bush cut taxes disproportionately for the rich), but the ones who end up paying the price is us citizens who find our dollars depreciating through inflation, because as you said, money isn't free. The cost shows up somewhere.
  • austenw, on 12/04/2007, -3/+2TLDW
  • JimmyIkon, on 12/04/2007, -3/+5The title is misleading. Using "a history of" would make you believe this is unbiased when in fact it is biased.
    • omegaredIX, on 12/04/2007, -2/+3What about this video is bias?
      • JimmyIkon, on 12/04/2007, -1/+2Did you hear anyone promote the benefits of the fed? I didn't, and that is a sign of bias.
    • Berkana, on 12/04/2007, -2/+4It obviously has a bias. There is no such thing as true neutrality, but that doesn't mean the documentary isn't honest, and it does represent a perspective on the history of money and monetary policy too long obscured and hidden from the public due to the biases of the banking interests and those who benefit from it.

      Is it biased? No kidding. But it is honest enough to be worth watching.
  • ldiamond, on 12/04/2007, -4/+17Ron Paul does not want to go back to the gold standard.

    1. He would like to abolish the illegally created, unconstitutional, private Federal Reserve Banking System. This would take control away from the bankers and is the most important action we must take. 1) The Federal Government through the Treasury should be in control of money supply NOT private banks. 2) The Federal Government should not be paying interest to a private bank.

    2. Interest rates should not be established by a private bank nor should a private bank be permitted to print as much fiat paper money as it likes. Inflation is a man made phenomena. It doesn't have to exist.

    3. Ron Paul want's to legalize gold a means of money. Gold is money. Fiat paper currency is not real money. He wants to legalized financial instruments such as the Gold Bond.

    4. He would like to have a competing currency that is backed by gold, similar to the Liberty Dollar.

    5. Ideally, our currency would be tied to gold in a fixed or narrowly floating range.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 12/04/2007, -1/+4Those are the only points of Ron Pauls I agree with so far.
      Everyone THINKS we need the Federal Reserve and fractional lending -- because that is all they know. The government could be lending you the money to do things that help society. If you can't pay it back -- then, it's a wash as long as it was for a LOCAL project.
      Right now, you are paying a foreign debt for a trinket at WalMart that took a job out of the US and sent it to China. Everyone is more and more in debt to offshore banks, which are more and more influencing politicians.
      We have fundamental problems with the way we elect people and control our assets. War and indentured servitude are engineered into this system that keeps us as a nation from having trains instead of cars, education instead of prisons, and compromised politicians instead of leaders.
  • thiagoleite, on 12/04/2007, -3/+4Dugg for 80's soundtrack intro... and Oh yeah! Ron Paul 08
  • rishqo, on 12/04/2007, -2/+2One of the best books on the issue of money, mortgages, debt-based economy and its grave consequences:
    Michael Rowbotham - The Grip of Death: A Study of Modern Money, Debt Slavery, and Destructive Economics
    http://tinyurl.com/yo5kob
  • z4ce, on 12/04/2007, -3/+3Ron Paul does not want to go back to the gold standard.
    - Yes he does. Tying the currency is a narrow band is a gold standard. Unless you're going to honestly try to say the Bretton-Woods system wasn't gold standard which is normally the example of a gold-standard system.

    1. He would like to abolish the illegally created, unconstitutional, private Federal Reserve Banking System. This would take control away from the bankers and is the most important action we must take. 1) The Federal Government through the Treasury should be in control of money supply NOT private banks. 2) The Federal Government should not be paying interest to a private bank.
    - Unconstitutional eh? Section 8 of the U.S. Constituition "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;" In my opinion, that includes the capability for Congress to delegate (by law) that regulation to a third party.
    2. Interest rates should not be established by a private bank nor should a private bank be permitted to print as much fiat paper money as it likes. Inflation is a man made phenomena. It doesn't have to exist.

    - Yeah OK. We'll just get rid of lending system all together. M1=M2=M3. I seriously haven't heard Ron Paul expouse that view and I seriously doubt he holds to it. Banks have ALWAYS been able to able to hold fractional reserves. I don't think Ron Paul is trying to undo this.

    3. Ron Paul want's to legalize gold a means of money. Gold is money. Fiat paper currency is not real money. He wants to legalized financial instruments such as the Gold Bond.
    - Gold is one type of money. Fiat paper currency is also quiet real money. If you don't agree with that, can you please send me all of your fiat paper currency? :)

    4. He would like to have a competing currency that is backed by gold, similar to the Liberty Dollar.
    - Yeah, that would be fan-tastic. Let's have two national currencies. That will be really convenient.

    5. Ideally, our currency would be tied to gold in a fixed or narrowly floating range.
    - Yes, because when we were formally tied to gold in a narrow floating range that worked out SO well for the United States.
    • Richandler, on 12/04/2007, -1/+11. Ron is for competition.
      2. Fractional Reserve is old yes. It is also corrupt.
      3. I'll send you my money if you give me your gold
      4. Ok, nice sarcastic pointless rebuttal. Convenience, like having, American Express, Visa, Master Card, Cash, Check, and money order have made money inconvenient.
      5. Yes it actually worked out fine till the federal reserve was created. Then massive borrowing, followed, by interest rate cuts, then mass sell off of stock followed by high interest rates, banks without money they lent and calling in loans and deflating the dollar along with seizure of everyones gold cause the huge economic collapses. The Fed was created to prevent it and well it caused and has caused it every time by the same methods.
  • critthinker, on 12/04/2007, -2/+16The MAJOR reason the establishment HATES Ron Paul is not his anti-war views ,but opposition to that "legalized" counterfitting operation called the Federal Reserve!

    http://www.fdrs.org/invisible_government.html
    http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/fract/

    These PRIVATE banks can write the US government an IUO notes in the bank's name, that are not are backed by precious metals or any other COLLATERAL that could be repossed in need be, and the US government then gives them billions of dollars worth of bills of any denomination at the $20.61 per 1000 bills that it costs to print them, and the PRIVATE banks can then loan that money to other banks and collect interest on that money!

    Q: Why can't you and I open a PRIVATE bank and get in on such a sweet deal?
    A: Because you and I do not belong to these families!
    The Rothchilds
    Lazard Freres (Eugene Mayer)
    Israel Sieff
    Kuhn Loeb Company
    Warburg Company
    Lehman Brothers
    Goldman Sachs
    The Rockefeller family and J.P. Morgan interests

    Q: What other citizens in the world would let such and INSANE idea continue?
    A: NONE, because the citizens in other countries are not STUPID as ours to allow such a "scam" to happen and would riot in the streets and force, the government to use a PUBLIC central bank to introduce bills in the system or make those PRIVATE banks put up something of value as COLLATERAL rather than letting them make money from "thin air"!


    The following two sections from the Federal Reserve ACT PROVE the above statements are TRUE:

    Section 16.2. Application for Notes by Federal Reserve Banks
    Any Federal Reserve bank may make application to the local Federal Reserve agent for such amount of the Federal Reserve notes hereinbefore provided for as it may require. Such application shall be accompanied with a tender to the local Federal Reserve agent of collateral in amount equal to the sum of the Federal Reserve notes thus applied for and issued pursuant to such application. The collateral security thus offered shall be notes, drafts, bills of exchange, or acceptances acquired under section 10A, 10B, 13, or 13A of this Act, or bills of exchange endorsed by a member bank of any Federal Reserve district and purchased under the provisions of section 14 of this Act, or bankers' acceptances purchased under the provisions of said section 14, or gold certificates, or Special Drawing Right certificates, or any obligations which are direct obligations of, or are fully guaranteed as to principal and interest by, the United States or any agency thereof, or assets that Federal Reserve banks may purchase or hold under section 14 of this Act or any other asset of a Federal reserve bank. In no event shall such collateral security be less than the amount of Federal Reserve notes applied for. The Federal Reserve agent shall each day notify the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System of all issues and withdrawals of Federal Reserve notes to and by the Federal Reserve bank to which he is accredited. The said Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System may at any time call upon a Federal Reserve bank for additional security to protect the Federal Reserve notes issued to it. Collateral shall not be required for Federal Reserve notes which are held in the vaults of, or are otherwise held by or on behalf of, Federal Reserve banks.

    Section.16.16. Expenses
    The expenses necessarily incurred in carrying out these provisions, including the cost of the certificates or receipts issued for deposits received, and all expenses incident to the handling of such deposits shall be paid by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and included in its assessments against the several Federal reserve banks.


    Now that you KNOW, what are you gonna do about it?
    • HappyScrappy, on 12/05/2007, -1/+1Fractional banking does not print money, in that the money made is never printed. So the $20.61 cost of printing ***** is just complete BS.

      When you start making sense, I'm ready to listen.
      • critthinker, on 12/05/2007, -0/+1Where in the above post do I say fraction banking prints money?

        Where did you learn to read?

        READ THE FEDERAL RESERVE ACT!

        http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/fract/

        FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS PAY THE US MINT FOR THEM TO PRINT FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES AT COST, WHOSE FACE VALUE IS BACKED BY THE COLLATERAL OF THE BANKS OWN IOU!

        Your post perfectly illustrates my point about STUPID citizens!

        If this idea is so "great" and "innocent" how come you and I cannot set up a "private" bank with that privilge, like the families mentioned above?

        Do you believe in american "royalty" or something?
        • HappyScrappy, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1The article title: 'A History of Fractional Reserve Banking'

          your screed:
          'the US government then gives them billions of dollars worth of bills of any denomination at the $20.61 per 1000 bills that it costs to print them, and the PRIVATE banks can then loan that money to other banks and collect interest on that money!'

          No bills change hands. No bills are printed. Thus the idea that the cost to print this money that was never printed comes into play makes no sense. The money created under fractional banking is not created in the federal reserve banks, it is made by the other banks (Wells Fargo, etc.). This money is not printed. You can make your own bank to get involved in fractional banking, as I mentioned above.

          The Federal Reserve stopped adjusting the printed money supply in the early 80s, replaced by changing the reserve rate instead.

          You're right about money being created with "IOU"s through fractional banking. Beyond that, you're just getting into nuttery.

          'Q: What other citizens in the world would let such and INSANE idea continue?
          A: NONE, because the citizens in other countries are not STUPID as ours to allow such a "scam" to happen and would riot in the streets and force, the government to use a PUBLIC central bank to introduce bills in the system or make those PRIVATE banks put up something of value as COLLATERAL rather than letting them make money from "thin air"!'

          Except apparently Venezuela, they turned down taking over their central bank this week.
    • mysql101, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1I told a coworker about this, and he wanted to look up India's banking system. It turns out India used to have a similarly privately held banking system. In the 50's they abolished it, and now it's gov't run and controlled. He then rested easy, knowing his home country wasn't as big a ***** hole America is. :(
  • ldiamond, on 12/04/2007, -2/+4If you only have an hour, watch Fiat Empire.
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5232639329 ...
  • jarjarjanks, on 12/04/2007, -8/+7Hint: ITS THE JEWS!
  • richmomz, on 12/04/2007, -2/+10Fractional Reserve Banking = Legalized Ponzi Scheme
    • chaosium, on 12/05/2007, -1/+1Yes, the Multi-level-marketing scheme of the Liberty Dollar should be a fair substitute.
      • PeppermintPig, on 12/05/2007, -1/+1Apparently whenever any commodity changes value relative to another commodity, and you try to profit from this change, you are 'scheming'. Are you familiar with the stock market?

        USD loses value. People buy Silver, and over time it rises in value RELATIVE to the USD. That doesn't make the Liberty Dollar a criminal enterprise. Who's being hurt here? Do you have a right to profit and value???

        Federal Reserve might not be multi level, per se, but it is the biggest scheme ever concocted. Fractional reserve banking is idiocy!
  • alternativecatI, on 12/05/2007, -1/+1I haven't watched Fiat Empire yet. I'll check that out.

    The best video I've seen so far is Money Banking and the Federal Reserve by Mises.org http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-466210540 ...

    I watched it on Google video, but I also bought a copy to loan out to people who don't have Internet connections . . . you know. Like those elderly people who vote the most.
    • Berkana, on 12/05/2007, -0/+2The Mieses video has some crucial inaccuracies that the video I linked addresses. The Mieses video misrepresents the Continental dollar, by not telling about the time when colonial script worked just fine; abuses led to the failure of the continental, not it's fiat nature. The Mieses video also fails to tell how Lincoln's interest free greenbacks succeeded amazingly well, and how the bankers hated him for it and tried to destroy the Greenback; all the Mieses video does is lump it together with all the failed or flawed fiat currency schemes.

      Watch both, to be best informed, and compare the points made in both.
      • MrFunions, on 12/05/2007, -0/+1You fail to mention that it's the Contintental dollar's fiat nature that allowed it to be abused. This is the whole reason why the founders were adamant about only allowing gold and silver to be legal tender during the Constitutional convention. Lincoln's greenbacks only succeeded because the government balanced the budget and payed off the deficit in the subsequent years. Care to guess what happened to the Confederates money?
  • cybrguy, on 12/05/2007, -2/+5An exellent quote from the video at 46:50
    "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and the coprorations which grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
    -- Thomas Jefferson
  • synarchy, on 12/05/2007, -2/+3"The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries."
    - David Rockefeller in an address to a meeting of The Trilateral Commission, in June, 1991.

    That's the "why" and the "who". Take out their institutions and remove the "how". I'll be happy to live through the process of picking up the pieces to get something in place that works for everyone, not just the "elite".
  • mmigliari, on 12/05/2007, -2/+2This is a total must read. Amazing to say the least. We certainly live in a world where even 99% of the educated don't understand the fundamental principles behind our monetary system. The video proves we are all slaves to the banking system.
  • PeppermintPig, on 12/05/2007, -3/+1So, what is the solution?

    Fractional reserve clearly doesn't do any good. This documentary suggests that even when there were competitive banking systems, there were fractional reserve practices being engaged in, and they were yet backed by the state.

    Government's should not be backing any of this. Our money should be chosen in the marketplace, with as many competitors as demand provides for, and independent auditing to ensure that the value CLAIMED on a piece or certificate is accurate.
  • Christ0s, on 12/05/2007, -2/+2Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the capitalist system was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some. The sight of this arbitrary rearrangement of riches strikes not only at security, but at confidence in the equity of the existing distribution of wealth. Those to whom the system brings windfalls, beyond their deserts and even beyond their expectations or desires, become 'profiteers,' who are the object of the hatred of the bourgeoisie, whom the inflationism has impoverished, not less than of the proletariat. As the inflation proceeds and the real value of the currency fluctuates wildly from month to month, all permanent relations between debtors and creditors, which form the ultimate foundation of capitalism, become so utterly disordered as to be almost meaningless; and the process of wealth-getting degenerates into a gamble and a lottery.
    Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose. - keynes
  • sirpsys, on 12/05/2007, -0/+2When I saw this I honestly thought that it was submitted because the title is so boring sounding that it's funny. I clicked the link and saw that it was over 3 hours long and I was sure.
  • six30pm, on 12/05/2007, -1/+3Ron Paul supports an asset backed currency. Under such a system a dollar is worth a dollar of whatever asset is used. In other words no fractional reserve banking. I suspect his preference for gold as that asset stems from his adherence to the constitution (Article 1 section 9).

    "They" hate him not because he wants to abolish the fed, they know he wont have the power to do so. They hate him because he will end the enormously lucrative borrowing needed to fund the war by ending the war.
  • shanmac, on 12/05/2007, -2/+1I guess we should have kept Abe Lincoln President. Too bad, so sad.
  • Dquist, on 12/05/2007, -1/+3Too bad only a few of us have attention spans more developed than toddlers. This should be working it's way to the top of digg... instead it's getting passed by a semi-coherent essay linking the racial-feminist progressive movements to a porn vid involving a couple dykes and some doodie.

    This sad state of digg = not cool...
  • xTRUMANx, on 12/05/2007, -0/+2This video just depresses the ***** out of me. I just hope someone somewhere takes action. Being from a country with no stable gov't doesn't help one's chances of doing anything.
  • phauwn, on 12/05/2007, -0/+1I'm not trying to bash this video, but I lol'd during the opening monologue: "Experts say a crash is coming"..... such an obvious fact delivered with sobering sterness... it's basically a tautology... "Children agree candy is sweet and delicious."
  • principle, on 12/05/2007, -1/+1"It gets dug out of the ground in Africa, or someplace. Then we melt it down, dig another hole, bury it again and pay people to stand around guarding it. It has no utility. Anyone watching from Mars would be scratching their head." Warren Buffett

    Even though I have enormous respect for Ron Paul, I find his statements misleading. For example, he implies that the founding fathers wanted our government to coin gold-based currency. Actually, this is what they set forth in the Constitution

    Article I, Section 8 “The Congress shall have Power … To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;”

    Gold-based currencies were invented by bankers and I am certain that Ron Paul is aware of that. He even said that US has NO GOLD!

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-186811620 ...

    With gold-based currencies, those who have no gold have no money. So going to gold standard is not going to make us rich and thus solve our problems. In fact, the use of fiat money is not the root of the problem. The problem we have was created by banks, which printed their own money and collected compound interest on loans. There is a very good video presentation on this subject called “Money As Debt”.

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-905047436 ...

    As much as I like Ron Paul, he is too inflexible to lead us out of bondage to the Fed. Ron Paul proposes to get rid of the Fed and the Income Tax. Yes, that would put us on a rode to recovery. However, the notion of converting to gold standard is not an option. We simply have no gold. At the same time, being a Libertarian he wants a small government, which is incompatible with value-backed money. That is, money issued to build government projects like power plans, roads, bridges, etc., where the treasury would act as the central bank landing money, with proceeds going back to the people. Unfortunately, none of this is possible with Ron Paul as president because he is against “big” government.
    • jaymzdean, on 09/16/2008, -0/+1While Warren Buffett has a point, he can't erase the fact that throughout human history, precious metals have held intrinsic value due to their utilitarian advantages and rarity. This will not change.
      The problem is that the lion's share of the gold has ended up in the hands of very few, and THIS is what must be remedied.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 57 of 57 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.