Jere has written:

"The Fed and FRS [Federal Reserve System] has it all [America's Gold reserves], along with the other international central bankers and money merchants that make up the "Monzi Scheme" we think of as a money system. It is all one humongous con game... a scam of historic and unimaginable proportions."

A discussion of this idea is at
http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2009 ... cheme.html

Jere's idea that, say, our major creditors, China and Japan, and their central banks are working with the American CB to continue a scheme that once involved the Bank of England (and, perhaps, the banks of the Rothschild's in Germany, France, Great Britain, Holland, Italy and America) is not credible.

The establishment version of the history of central banking, especially of the banks that financed losers in war (such as the the rebel Confederate States in America, Germany and Japan,) put single nation central banks inside their borders with politics and war as the determining competitive arenas and international trade as a major factor only when it is possible.

A web of debt is not a web of ultimate power. One would think that the wars of the 20th and 21st century would disabuse all persons of belief in money merchants connected to a financial empire from the Middle Ages and the City States in Italy (and even far earlier than these) through the ascendancy and decline of imperial Spain, France, Britain, and Russia, or the evolution of nationalism, socialism, and post-modernism, until now.

America, unique in its inclusion of large populations of people from every other nation, and its role in promoting freedom and democracy more than other major powers, has inherited and created great wealth. It is now challenged by Asian giants who are its trading partners.

It may well be that the wealth of nations with many times the population of America, and with land and resources large enough to compete with America, will surpass America.

But that possibility does not lend credence to a theory of money merchants from all nations standing together against their own politicians and military leaders. It never happened.

Where these merchant bankers stood is with one side or another as they tried to finance victory for their side against bankers and generals on the other side.

Why pick on the bankers? The perennial problem is 'the establishment'. Political and legal systems already entrench the establishment - it is up to the market to move resources from the old and established to the young and creative.

The market must be protected, and a money system that further favors and entrenches the establishment is inappropriate. Money should be created bottom-up, from the consumer to the producer - not bottom-down, from the producer to the consumer. This is 'cart before the horse' economics.

[Edited by Admin for personal slurs and insults.]

Matabele and I think similarly: we want to empower the individual. The market and democracy are institutions trying to do that. I agree ithe Matabele that individuals should and do create money. We may as a team want to discuss a 100% reserve requirement.

Such a requirement would remove the power of the individual to create money as we do it today. Theoretically, it would raise the interest rate on loans to individuals. What say you, Matabele?

Money is created whenever one party extends 'time to pay' to another party - this happens at all levels of the economy, all the time (I have used here, the broadest definition of money - 'any token accepted as exchange in lieu of wares'.)

The present system, however, grants special legal privilege to one particular money type - the 'national currency'. Any private institution (such as a private bank), given the right of issue of such currency, has in effect been granted this special privilege.

There is complete confusion about this 'national currency' money type. Conventional wisdom is that issue originates from the state (federal govt. in the US), however, in truth less than 5% is issued this way. The majority of 'national currency' is issued by private banks in the form of demand deposits. The confusion arises due to the obvious privilege afforded this currency by the state, and not due to its issue by the state.

Either this special privilege should be withdrawn (by implementing full reserve banking), or requisite compensation should be paid to the public (on an ongoing basis) for such privilege. Compensation in the form of bribes paid to the elected representatives of the public (and their appointed officials,) do not qualify - neither do inadequate payments toward deposit insurance schemes.

note: I do not believe that private banks are sufficiently responsible to bear full liability for this privilege of issue. This is currently obvious, otherwise 'bail outs' would not be required.

My thoughts are that all forms of money issued should be afforded equal legal privilege, provided that such issue is done in a completely transparent manner and according to certain well defined rules. As many types of currency as necessary can then circulate in parallel (already the case with different national currencies.) A user, before accepting any particular currency type, would then be able to evaluate the risk of holding such currency, and discount (devalue) accordingly.

Thank you Matabele. It may be obvious to most of us here. However it seems that John Gelles finds your obvious observation, and mine, as well as this basic assumption of the need for money reform, strange. In another post of his today he said: Then he went on to call the moderator "sick in the head" and an "Ayatollah" who wanted only to dispense "doctrine" and not allow discussion.

I really would be "sick in the head" if I allowed such comments to be made against anyone here, much less against the forum administration. So for these and other reasons John Gelles is no longer welcome on this forum. After numerous private and public warnings to cease the ad hominem attacks, he has now been banned. He worked hard to achieve that status, and he should not be denied his reward.

I am posting this in lieu of removing his posts from the forum for several reasons. 1) He started this thread, even if I had to move it to a more appropriate forum, and it contains responses I did not want to remove. 2) I wanted people to know that JG was banned, and why. 3) I want everyone here to know that this "Forum Ayatolah" will not long tolerate being called one, or being insulted in any way that I would not allow against any member of this forum.

People who cannot confine their comments to issues will be banned. I have zero tolerance for personal attacks and insults against others.

For the record, contrary to the claims of John Gelles, not one post has ever been moderated in any way here over issues, or disagreement with the moderators, Web of Debt, Lost Science of Money, or other reform proposals. Not one.

Honest, sincere, open discussion is welcomed. Hostile challenges to the core principles of monetary reforms are unwelcome, as are attempts to flood the forum with posts that are adverse or hostile to our reason for being, which is meaningful monetary reforms that will result in fairness and economic justice for all, and not just the few at the top of the money pyramids.

"False flag operatives" or those who come posing as money reformers while their true intent is distraction and obfuscation will be discovered, and invited to go play somewhere else. I have little tolerance for those who are deceitful, or try to disguise their true motives and intentions.

In solidarity,

Jere/Admin