Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The Money Masters

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

The favorable stance on Greenbacks as opposed to the Gold Standard is interesting. I understand the Objectivist position to favor the Gold Standard on grounds that it prevents government manipulation of the money supply, but a properly-managed debt-free paper currency would seem to have the advantage of freeing currency from the "strangehold" of gold. In other words, assuming that the paper currency were objectively managed in relation to buying power, it would be superior to the Gold Standard. I suppose that the answer is that man's capacity for vice forecloses that as a practical matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those interested in economics, this two-part discussion on the Federal Reserve and the dangers it poses to the American economy:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8...86947&hl=en

Ok, I watched the first five minutes. What is this? Based on what I saw, it seems to be headed in the direction of a Marxist criticism of the Fed as being too private, of all things. Who are these people, and what position are they arguing from, and why do you think this video is worth watching for those interested in economics?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched the first ten minutes and stopped after the following words (paraphrased):

"The money changers now control the press."

This sounds like a silly consiracy theory. Next they will be blaming Jewish people for it.

I think the problem with the Federal Reserve is not that it is private but that it has a monopoly on the issuance of currency. Other private corporations should be allowed to issue their own currency in a rational society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't watched it, but from what Bold and Seeker say, it appears to be the typical ultra-right type conspiracy theory about the jews running the world. There's a common variant that has the jew bankers getting together and creating the Fed Reserve, and having us all convinced it's working for us while it actually works for the evil bankers, etc. etc. We've had some threads in the Economics sub-forum along those lines before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The favorable stance on Greenbacks as opposed to the Gold Standard is interesting. I understand the Objectivist position to favor the Gold Standard on grounds that it prevents government manipulation of the money supply, but a properly-managed debt-free paper currency would seem to have the advantage of freeing currency from the "strangehold" of gold. In other words, assuming that the paper currency were objectively managed in relation to buying power, it would be superior to the Gold Standard. I suppose that the answer is that man's capacity for vice forecloses that as a practical matter.

As a proponent of the Gold Standard for many years, I too felt that the Greenbacks were successful only because the government at that time had an interest in gaining public trust in their currency. As with all fiat money, the risk of monetary depreciation through the printing of excess paper exists. And another question I had was, how did Jackson determine the amount of scrip to circulate and what value was it based upon?

An interesting thing that I recall even Alan Greenspan admitting, is that an economy based purely on paper can work, as it has been in America since 1963. All it takes is a reasonable degree of stability in the money supply and the faith of the people that the money is legal tender and they will use it. Where this paper comes from, and what its intrinsic value is, seems unimportant, so long as the number of pieces of paper chasing after goods is stable.

The documentary points out that with the Fed banking system, the fed can manipulate currency to bring boom and bust, to influence governments to do their bidding; ultimately it doesn't matter who is king or president, because the men who control the money supply control everything.

For those that didn't watch because they were quick to write off the whole thing as anti-semetic and conspiracy theory, it goes through the whole history of banking, going back to ancient Rome, and shows how the bankers manipulated governments by tightening the money supply at will, by funding nations at war (both sides) and how the bankers always emerge with profit from wars. This documentary provides a believable scenario and reasoning for why modern nations are always at war--war is big business and the most profitable business for the bankers.

That said, I've yet to watch part 2, but unlike most of the other documentaries I've seen, this one seems to be strongly based on verifiable historical writings of our past presidents and bankers. "He who controls the money supply, controls the world."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but a properly-managed debt-free paper currency would seem to have the advantage of freeing currency from the "strangehold" of gold. In other words, assuming that the paper currency were objectively managed in relation to buying power, it would be superior to the Gold Standard. I suppose that the answer is that man's capacity for vice forecloses that as a practical matter.

a. What you do you mean by "properly managed" and what is the system by which this management would occur that woudl keep it so?

b. What is "the stranglehold of gold"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a. What you do you mean by "properly managed" and what is the system by which this management would occur that woudl keep it so?

b. What is "the stranglehold of gold"?

a. The video suggested that a government that wanted to promote confidence in its currency could manage its supply in relation to demand to achieve relative price stability as opposed to causing inflation by overprinting or tightening the supply to cause depression as the Fed is supposed to have done in the early 30's. I don't think it can be so, because the temptation for manipulation is too great.

b. The video stated that since most gold reserves are now held by such institutions as the IMF and World Bank, that this concentration in a few hands would amount to a "stranglehold" over the global economy under a gold standard of currency. Clearly the authors believe that this capacity for stranglehold can be avoided by a debt-free U.S. federal paper currency which they advocate. Personally I just see the issue as one of convenience, i.e. the need for banks to be constantly shipping physical gold all over the world to meet shifting demand for money seems a bit antiquated and silly. I accept that it would serve as a check on man's capacity for vice in managing paper currency, however.

Edited by Seeker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An interesting book on central banking is "A Creature fron Jeckyl Island", by G Edward Griffin anybody read/ have an opinion on it. It I think does a pretty good job of telling the story of banking throughout the history of the US and before.

The questions that pop up in my mind: what is the motivation of the producer to make this video? We can’t assume that it’s true, although it may be (but then if it is, wouldn’t the producer’s lives be in danger?)

Gold is a stabilizing force. If paper is tied to gold, it is harder to inflate it. Lincoln’s greenbacks worked because the government had a vested interest in gaining the faith of the people in its new currency and had to produce a limited amount and avoid inflating it. Paper currency, in general, is easy to print, as such, inflation can happen at the will of the government that prints that paper.

That said, it all DOES make some degree of sense out of the many ‘illogical’ government actions we have witnessed in recent history. History repeats itself because it is in the bankers’ interest.

But that begs the question: can there BE such people, so evil, that millions are not enough, but that trillions, stolen from the people, forcing billions of people into abject poverty and financial ruin is required to satisfy their endless appetite for money? I find this hard to believe. How much money is enough? I can’t imagine anyone wanting to destroy the world for the sake of his personal gain. The conspiracy seems too implausible.

It all comes back to, ‘what is the motive of Bill Still and his production?’

In fact, with all these conspiracy videos and web sites, what is the motive? Avarice and hatred of government? The desire to see the erosion of the fabric of society? (I’m playing devil’s advocate here.)

It was interesting, but how can we check the facts? Who knows how to look up the quotes and find out if those public figures really said those things? I would feel more assured if the sources of information were revealed.

Could you provide a reference for this? What do you think he meant by saying it can "work"?

It was something I'd heard in recent years, perhaps in an economy magazine while sitting in a dentist's waiting room, or some other random opportunity to read magazines. I don't recall where. But then again, I can't recall what I had for breakfast most days. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...