NASA about to reveal the truth about aliens

On Dec 27, 11:02*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:
On Dec 21, 6:41 am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:
The USA could issue currency not backed by silver or gold. Would
this devalue and debase its currency?

The USA not only *could* do that, but it *HAS BEEN* doing that for a
good half a century or so now.

Not exactly.

Yeah, pretty much exactly.

Not at all. Money is not printed and handed out by Congress. Money
is printed in response to banking demand.

The Bureau of Engraving and Printing actually prints the money. They
do so at Treasury's request. Treasury prints money in response to
orders from the Fed. The Fed creates money by issuing loans using a
system of fractional banking. When there is a demand for notes, they
are ordered from member banks.

Congress doesn't print money. Congress issues bonds which are
underwritten by the Fed. Those loans result in bank balances which in
turn result in demand for currency.

http://www.moneyfactory.gov/

The point stands - Congress could issue currency directly without the
mechanism of a bond and avoid Federal debt and the paying of interest
to anyone.




Prior to 1971 the Federal Reserve Notes which were USA's currency, was
redeemable for gold at $35 per troy ounce. *Nixon ended that when
there was a run on US gold supply.

Breton Woods was not the same as a true 'backing' by gold, since one
had to be a signatory to the agreement in order to redeem US dollars
for gold. *Joe Mook couldn't redeem them for gold.

Setting up a system of rules, institutions, and procedures to regulate
the international monetary system, the planners at Bretton Woods
established the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), which
today is part of the World Bank Group. These organizations became
operational in 1945 after a sufficient number of countries had
ratified the agreement.

The chief features of the Bretton Woods system were an obligation for
each country to adopt a monetary policy that maintained the exchange
rate of its currency within a fixed value—plus or minus one percent—in
terms of gold and the ability of the IMF to bridge temporary
imbalances of payments.

On August 15, 1971, the United States unilaterally terminated
convertibility of the dollar to gold. This action, referred to as the
Nixon shock, created the situation in which the United States dollar
became the sole backing of currencies and a reserve currency for the
member states.




After the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 the USA ceded to the Federal
Reserve, a private company with sole right to print money - think of
an insurance company that has a right to sell insurance - but not
unlicensed companies. *Federal Reserves notes are printed in response
to the Federal government selling the Reserve bonds, which bear
interest or to demands for cash created b Reserve banks making loans
against a fraction of their deposits.

Wrong. *The Treasury (Bureau of Engraving and Printing) prints money,
not the Federal Reserve.

The Treasury only prints money in response to demand from the Fed.
The Treasury cannot print money on its own.

*The Federal Reserve can muck about with the
apparent money supply through open market operations, but it can't
print money.

Nonsense. The Federal Reserve system sends orders to Treasury which
orders The Bureau of Engraving and Printing to print notes the Fed
asks for.

The Bureau of Engraving and Printing will not turn its presses on
unless the Treasury tells them to. Treasury cannot tell them to turn
the presses on without orders from the Federal Reserve System. Its
the ability of the Federal Reserve to create money in the accounts of
its depositors through issuing loans (including Federal Debt) that
causes the demand for currency in the first place. Since no one else
has this capacity its fair to say the Fed prints the money. Its
disingenuous to say the Treasury prints the money. You might as well
say the Bureau of Engraving and Printing prints the money. That would
be disingenuous too since its the Fed's loan policies that expand or
contract the availability of currency in the USA.





The USA issues bonds to the Federal Reserve or private individuals
qualify for loans and the Reserve prints currency. *

Wrong.

Not wrong at all. We have a money supply that can expand when money
is needed. The term "elastic currency" in the Federal Reserve Act does
not just mean the ability to expand the money supply, but also to
contract it.

Elastic currency is defined by the Federal Reserve as:

Currency that can, by the actions of the central monetary
authority, expand or contract in amount warranted by economic
conditions.

Monetary policy of the Federal Reserve System is based partially on
the theory that it is best overall to expand or contract the money
supply as economic conditions change.

Treasury prints money in response to the demand for currency by the
market operation of the Federal Reserve System.

snip

You really should understand this stuff before you do your usual cut
and paste. *You've merely made yourself look ignorant.

Gee, I was going to say that about you! lol. Go to the Bureau of
Engraving and Printing. Ask them

(1) where do they get their orders for currency (from the banks)
(2) where do they send their currency (to the banks)

Treasury manages the operations and provides some information to
Congress and the President. Treasury does not originate the orders
nor does treasury decide the demand - its the financial markets
themselves that determine demand.


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
*truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Thomas Jefferson

On Dec 25, 4:10*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Dec 24, 11:41*pm, William Mook wrote:

Here is an updated history of the USA as outlined by Caroll Quiqley -
historian at Georgetown Univerisity - and mentor to William Clinton,
President of the USA.

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

Following the Revolutionary War the US Congress issues currency, the
Continental. *The Congress taxes their use at a rate that allows them
to be retired in 20 years as the quite successful Colonial Scrip was
used prior to the Revolution. The new nation refused to rely on
foreign debt to fund its operation. *This was the result of many
founders blaming the policies of the Central Banks of Europe for the
war in the first place. *In response to the issue of this scrip those
same European banking interests pay to counterfeit Continentals and
pay to have them circulated throughout the new Republic. *The
resulting efforts reduce the value of the Continentals to 1/40th their
face value in a few years. *The ensuing hyperinflation is used to
promote the idea a central bank is needed in the USA. *So the Bank of
North America is formed is installed in 1781 that makes available
credit to back a new issue of currency. *The way it worked is that
instead of issuing currency directly, the Congress issues bonds which
bear interest to the bank, which then circulates currency in response
to demand. *due to "alarming foreign influence and fictitious credit,"
favoritism to foreigners and unfair competition against less corrupt
state banks issuing their own notes, such that Pennsylvania's
legislature repealed its charter to operate within the Commonwealth in
1785. *In response European bank made credit tight which created an
economic downturn. *This was exploited in newspapers owned by those
banks to create a demand that something be done. *Congress was bribed,
and despite severe misgivings by people like Thomas Jefferson, the USA
once again experimented with a central bank. *In 1791 a 20 year
charter was issued to the First Bank of the United States. This bank
operated much the same way as the Bank of North America. *Following a
brief period of easy credit and low interest, which led to an economic
boom, there was a period of high interest and money transfer
overseas. *By 1811 when the charter was scheduled for renewal, the
First Bank of the USA lost its charter. *As a result, the same banking
interests made credit given to Britain contingent on them organizing
an invasion of the United States. *So, a few months later the War of
1812 followed. *Following the war and the debt which surrounded it,
tight money again plunged the nation into economic turmoil. *The same
voices that supported the creation of a central bank spoke again.
After a five-year interval, the federal government chartered the First
Bank's successor, the Second Bank of the United States (1816–1836). It
was basically a copy of the First Bank, with branches across the
country. Andrew Jackson, who was a hero of the War of 1812, became
president in 1828. *Jackson denounced the bank as an engine of
corruption. His destruction of the bank was a major political issue in
the 1830s and shaped the Second Party System, as Democrats in the
states opposed banks and Whigs supported them. *Jackson fired
thousands of government workers who supported the bank, refused to do
business with the bank, and was the only President to pay off all US
debts to the bank. *When the banks charter ran out in 1836 he
successfully campaigned against its re-chartering. *At that time there
was an attempt on Jackson's life by the same banking interests who
supported the bank. After 1836 only state-chartered banks existed.
They could issue bank notes against specie (gold and silver coins) and
the states regulated their own reserve requirements, interest rates
for loans and deposits, the necessary capital ratio. The Michigan Act
(1837) allowed the automatic chartering of banks that would fulfill
its requirements without special consent of the state legislature.
Banks issued notes to support their credit to corporations and
individuals creating money as it was needed. By 1797, there were 24
chartered banks in the U.S., while with the beginning of the Free
Banking Era (1837), there were 712. * Deposit insurance companies
arose to secure deposits naturally in the market and during this
period the USA free of the manipulations of foreign banking interests
saw the largest increase in its economic fortunes of any nation during
this period. *The Central European banks had to do something to end
this 'good example' which the Europeans might follow and throw of the
yoke of central banks in Europe. *As a result, those banks arranged to
create a large economic disparity in the 1840s between North and South
by issuing additional credit to the North through banks they
controlled in New York, while disallowing credit in the South, so the
South could not participate fully in the economic expansion. *Northern
press controlled by European banks created controversy around the
institution of slavery and political groups were funded to create
division between North and South on this issue. *By the 1860s this
became the central political issue in the USA. *They backed Lincoln in
the North and Jefferson Davis in the South. *The European bankers
through France also provided easy credit for the South's military
expenditures. *There ensued a Civil War. *The European banks supported
the South and withdrew all credit from the North at the outset of
hostilities - causing a reversal of economic fortunes for both sides.
When European lenders quoted 30% interest to Lincoln, he went back to
Washington without obtaining any loans. *He asked what might be done
and was told the Constitution allowed the US to issue its own
currency. *So, that's what he did. *The National Banking Act of 1863,
besides providing loans in the Civil War effort of the Union included
provisions:

* * * To create a system of national banks. The office of Comptroller
of the Currency was created to supervise these banks.
* * * To create a uniform national currency.
* * * To finance the war. by issuing notes directly from the United
States (Greenbacks), and Treasury bonds through the National banks.

After the Civil War Lincoln sought to expand this program of direct
creation of currency without the paying of interest. *Lincoln like
Jackson, had several attempts made on his life after. *This time, the
bankers succeeded. *Otto von Bismark lamented the success of the
bankers in mourning Lincoln's death.

To promote the use of The government imposed a 10% tax on state bank
bills, forcing most banks to convert to national banks. By 1865, there
were already 1,500 national banks. In 1870, 1,638 national banks stood
against only 325 state banks.

Economic growth after the war boomed. *European banks invested heavily
in key industries to take profits out of this growth directly. *They
also sought to manipulate sectional differences where they could to
create economic panics and then followed up those panics by carefully
crafted political programs to promote the idea that the home grown
system of banking was inefficient while reliance on a more stable
European Central bank model backed by European currency would end
these sorts of panics. *European banking interests were also not above
bribing officials to get their way. *In 1880 House Speaker and
Chairman of the House Ways and Means took office as President. *He
strongly supported the expansion of direct issuance of notes by the
USA to create debt free money in the USA. *He was assassinated in
1881.

The tax led in the 1880s and 1890s to the creation and adoption of
checking accounts so in this way banks could continue to issue note
like instruments while avoiding the tax. By the 1890s, 90% of the
money supply was in checking accounts. State banking had made a
comeback.

The California Gold Rush of 1848 combined with the Alaska gold rush in
1898 created the means by which the USA had enough gold and silver of
its own to back its currency with gold - challenging European gold
holdings. *In his 1900 re-election campaign President McKinley sought
to have a gold backed currency, using US gold. *In order to stop
manipulation of the gold market and the extraction of US gold to
European hands, he supported a tariff, and when that failed to stop
the wholesale transfer of gold through manipulation, caused charges to
be brought against both the European and New York banks which
participated in the transfer. *In 1901 McKinley was shot. *The lawsuit
failed to produce the desired result. *Much of the gold found in
California and Alaska, made its way to European banks who promptly
used it as credit to back loans 10x greater in the USA. *These loans
were then manipulated to create a panic in the early 1900s which
resulted in the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913 and the
ratification of the 16th Amendment also in 1913. *Lacking gold, the US
government pledged the labor of the American people to secure the
debts of the United States.

In just 20 years, the US paid for its century of independence from
European banks. *By 1933 the Federal Reserve had bankrupted the United
States and the Federal Reserve sued the country for bankruptcy.
Roosevelt was forced to appropriate all the remaining gold owned by
the citizens of the United States and pledged it to the Federal
Reserve - holding it in Fort Knox - as part of the Emergency Bank
Act. * Roosevelt also supported the creation of a Social Security
system which passed in 1938. *The savings of all people of the USA are
pledged to the Federal Reserve along with gold and tax receipts to
secure continued credit from the Federal Reserve under this emergency
legislation which continues to this day.

After securing their ability to capture the income savings and gold of
the people of the United States, these same banking groups funded the
Communists in Russia along with the Facists in Germany and Italy, and
the Japanese invasion of Manchuria - which led eventually to World War
2 and US involvement. *This followed the same sort of approach that
these same banking houses used to indebt the people of Europe for the
previous 300 years. *Create turmoil that leads to war, and in the heat
of war, run up the debt of the combatants beyond all reason. *The
media empires that these banks accumulated in the USA sold War as a
way to end the depression they had created and engineered.

At the end of the war, the development of nuclear weapons and the
conversion of allies - US and USSR - during the war into enemies -
created a new round of demand for debt. *To obtain this debt extending
the emergency credit 14 years earlier, the present National Security
Acts passed by the Truman were created to increase the power of the
Federal government to tap into the wealth of the people and
corporations of the United States.

The money spent by the United States made the United States the most
advanced military power in the world. *Meanwhile, policies of the
newly created IMF removed from the United States their ability to
manufacture products it relies on. *As a result, the US has the
instruments to maintain world peace, but does not have the means to
secure its own survival in the world. *We are therefore easy prey to
those who would control us for their ends.

Meanwhile, throughout the 1950s and 60s European banks made
development loans to third world countries who had rich resources.
Leaders of those nations were bribed to steal the money and not
develop their nations. *They were allowed to get away with this as
long as they cooperated with the central banks of Europe to extract
the mineral wealth of their countries - in payment for the debts that
would not be repaid through development, but through theft. *In this
way these banks could deny the people of each country the use of those
resources while making use of it themselves at discount prices.

These banks continued their control of the media inculcating
generations of Americans and others. *Taking real social issues and
spinning them for their own purposes. The promotion of equality for
women through people like Gloria Steinam, was paid for by the US
Central Intelligence Agency, because it fit the goals of the bankers
who now controlled many aspects of the government of the United States
(and asked for the creation of the CIA in the first place). * Absolute
equality of women achieved two major goals of these bankers

*1) It doubled the amount of labor they could make use of;

*2) It reduced the impact of the family on childhood development
ceding that to institutions who could then shape the development of
children more to their liking.

When Eisenhower tried to place limits Cold War spending and help
secure our national economy from further ruin, as evidenced by his
Military Industrial Complex speech when leaving ofiice in 1960.
Eisenhower was pressured by the CIA to enter Vietnam in support of the
French. *His worry over costs in combination with missile expense
caused him to do far less than the CIA wanted.

Sputnik was funded in Russia, in 1957 and Kennedy was funded in the
USA as a successor to Eisenhower was groomed by pointing out that
Sputnik was evidence of the USA falling behind Russia. *The idea of a
Missile Gap was sold to the American people. *JFK was elected and a
new source of spending and debt was created for the nation - the
National Space program grew dramatically with the *election of JFK.
JFK seemed to be the ideal candidate for the bankers. *His father was
a liquor importer at a time when liquor was illegal in the USA. *JFK
was considered a playboy who was easily controlled. *Averell Harriman
who represented central banking interests was appointed to work with
JFK at the White House. *JFK could be easily controlled. *The Space
Program along with the expansion of the War in Vietnam and the
expansion of the US Missile Defense system along with expansion of
social services - would continue to drive up debt of the USA to these
European bankers. *Kennedy saw this and made it clear that he would
not allow US troops to enter Vietnam as a main force, nor would he
allow the unlimited expansion of Nuclear Deterrence, seeking a
cooperative link with USSR. *He further sought to pay for Space
Exploration and social programs by the direct issuance of notes - just
as Lincoln had done during the Civil War. *He felt that like Jackson,
the US could issue notes without debt and use them to pay off its debt
while increasing reserve requirements of the banks that operated and
did business with the USA to not inflate the currency thus created.
This is reflected in EO 11.1110 in June of 1963 where $4.3 billion in
notes were issued directly by the USA - as permitted by the
Constitution.

When it was clear after the assassination of Diem in Vietnam in early
Nov 1963 that Kennedy would not use this as a pretext to invade the
country, he himself was assassinated later that same month. *LBJ took
office and reversed these decisions.

So, obviously you would have done things a little differently, but
then the whole truth and nothing but the truth about American history
is anything but objective, mostly because selective evidence is always
excluded whenever necessary in order to make us look as though our
guys and gals did absolutely nothing wrong or took unnecessary risks
that had any negative consequences. *Obviously 911 could have been
entirely prevented as of a decade before, just like our SEC and Ponzi
Madoff fiasco could have been easily prevented) but then you still
can't conceive of ever revising the public record of history, so
chances are actually pretty good that we'll be getting ourselves deep
into WW3 and having pretty much the same clueless knowledge of
anything that got us into the WW3 mess.

In the mean time, what we need is piles of surplus clean energy that's
almost too cheap to meter, plus one hell of a robust national power
grid that's at least mother nature bullet proof, and supposedly you
got that one plus a whole lot more nailed for us, but only as long as
we can manage to survive for at least another century because, it
seems nothing of Mook energy or other Mook technological advancements
is going to become available or influence the global market in any
deflationary way, if ever. *It seem Mook only believes in and
functions via inflation, whereas insiders (market speculators),
hoarders and GOP/Mafia types get to call all the shots.

You don't seem to like whatever most anyone else is doing, but are you
ever going to run for any public office or partake in any top level
(government, corporate or private) think tanks? (other than your own
think tank of one)

*~ BG

Madoff didn't cause the banking crisis. Madoff was thrown to the
press to satisfy their need for an easily recognized crook. Bottom
line, major powers elected to remove currency from the US banking
system and precipitate a crisis to move public attention away from
energy policy during the 2008 election.

On Dec 29, 5:34*pm, wrote:

Madoff didn't cause the banking crisis. *Madoff was thrown to the
press to satisfy their need for an easily recognized crook. *Bottom
line, major powers elected to remove currency from the US banking
system and precipitate a crisis to move public attention away from
energy policy during the 2008 election.

True, Ponzi Madoff only screwed a few thousand of us. The corrupted
federal reserve, our kosher approved SEC and a few too many other
government agencies (including the executive office of our nation) and
their faith-based mafia puppet-masters are what finished us off.

So, when are you going to fix this mess by showing us how it is done?

~ BG

On Dec 30, 1:51*am, Brad Guth wrote:
On Dec 29, 5:34*pm, wrote:



Madoff didn't cause the banking crisis. *Madoff was thrown to the
press to satisfy their need for an easily recognized crook. *Bottom
line, major powers elected to remove currency from the US banking
system and precipitate a crisis to move public attention away from
energy policy during the 2008 election.

True, Ponzi Madoff only screwed a few thousand of us. *The corrupted
federal reserve, our kosher approved SEC and a few too many other
government agencies (including the executive office of our nation) and
their faith-based mafia puppet-masters are what finished us off.

So, when are you going to fix this mess by showing us how it is done?

*~ BG

European bankers, backed principally by the Bank of England, have
attempted to gain control of the output of the USA, just as they have
gained control of all other nations on Earth. In the 1950s through
the 1980s they paid huge sums of money to third world countries,
ostensibly for development. They bribed leaders to steal the money
and let them get away with it as long as they secured those debts with
their nation's raw materials. Those that failed to do this were
assassinated. Meanwhile economies that grew fat with easy credit and
plenty of cash, were harvested of all their wealth by tightening
credit and creating an economic downturn. This business cycle is sold
as an act of nature, not as a means for banks to gather the wealth
created by others. This business cycle approach replaced the war/
taxes cycle of an earlier age after the development of nuclear
weapons.

I believe the best way to proceed is to leave the Earth to the owners
of the bank and for them to loan significant money to those who wish
to move off world. That way, solar system, and extra-solar resources
are developed by 100s of billions of people spread across the galaxy,
while they receive the benefits of raw materials within the cosmos and
innovations from a diverse and wealthy humanity.

On Dec 22, 6:06*pm, wrote:
On Dec 21, 8:23*pm, |"

wrote:
Why not back some bills with chromite sand? Others with mercury
besides the
ever so common place silver and gold.

Because mercury is poisonous and silver and gold are not.

So. Mercury is still used. The element wouldn't be for
home storage except when installed in the human mouth ;-)


And while were at it how
about garnet backed bills? *

Garnet occurs in too great an abundance and is easily faked.

No reason to fake garnets. I was thinking in terms of its
value as a source of aluminum. I don't think you realize
just how common garnets can be in some deposits. If
you notice they make sand paper with the stuff.


Or petroleum based bills?

Petroleum doesn't hold its value and there's too much of it. *Though
proved reserves have been floated as a means for backing Arabian
currency for many years now.

Really. Consider the oil reserve. The price more seems to float up
and down with the market and the cartel.


Though I
wouldn't
suppose, bills should be backed by gravel though it might make heist
a bit hard.

There is way too much gravel in the world to make this workable.
Although the Yap dollar comes close to this vision.

http://www.teachers.cr.k12.de.us/~galgano/yapmoney.htm

Just my plan to make placer mining more
profitable ;-)...................Trig

The split tally was a technique which became common in medieval
Europe, which was constantly short of money (coins) and predominantly
illiterate, in order to record bilateral exchange and debts.

A Hazelwood stick was marked with a system of notches and then split
lengthwise.

The two halves both record the same notches and each party to the
transaction received one half of the marked stick as proof.

Later this technique was refined in various ways and became virtually
tamper proof.

One of the refinements was to make the two halves of the stick of
different lengths. The longer part was called stock and was given to
the party which had advanced money or (other items) to the receiver.
The shorter portion of the stick was called foil and was given to the
party which had received the funds/goods.

Using this technique each of the parties had an identifiable and
tamper-proof record of the transaction.

The split tally was accepted as legal proof in medieval courts and the
Napoleonic Code (1804) still makes reference to the tally stick in
Article 1333. Along the Danube and in Switzerland the tally was still
used in the 20th Century in rural economies.

We could do the same thing with a little more sophistication as an
iPhone or Android App today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=istE1bpoDPg

On Dec 30, 10:52*am, |"
wrote:
On Dec 22, 6:06*pm, wrote:

On Dec 21, 8:23*pm, |"

wrote:
Why not back some bills with chromite sand? Others with mercury
besides the
ever so common place silver and gold.

Because mercury is poisonous and silver and gold are not.

So. Mercury is still used. The element wouldn't be for
home storage except when installed in the human mouth ;-)

Not so much, and the MSDS on it makes it very unlikely it will be
offered for general sale. Gold coated Tungsten wire with a depleted
Uranium core - designed to match the density of gold exactly - woven
into 'micro-bullion' each equipped with distributed RFID identifiers
is pretty much the way to go as far as practicality is concerned.




And while were at it how
about garnet backed bills? *

Garnet occurs in too great an abundance and is easily faked.

No reason to fake garnets.

No reason to fake garnets TODAY. Anything used for currency will be
counterfeited. You do recall we're talking about currency right?
lol. Really best not to hit the pipe until AFTER you post.

I was thinking in terms of its
value as a source of aluminum.

Then why not use aluminum itself?

I don't think you realize
just how common garnets can be in some deposits.

I don't think you're logically following the argument you're making.
We're talking about currency, you have proposed these things as
currency. I am telling you why I wouldn't invest in them as
currency. If YOU want to, go right ahead! lol.

If
you notice they make sand paper with the stuff.

So? Again, you're not making any sense wrt the original logic of your
argument.



Or petroleum based bills?

Petroleum doesn't hold its value and there's too much of it. *Though
proved reserves have been floated as a means for backing Arabian
currency for many years now.

Really. Consider the oil reserve. The price more seems to float up
and down with the market and the cartel.

Please understand that those prices are manipulated by controlling the
availability of it in the market. Slight changes in production in
Saudi Arabia relative to global demand cause prices to rise and fall.
This along with fractional banking which allows major banks to control
the money supply - drives the business cycle. Low prices for oil and
plenty of credit means economic boom times. Things build up. High
prices for oil and tight credit means economic downturn. We are sold
on the idea that the business cycle is natural. It is not. The boom
inspires people to work their asses off to build up value, and the
downturn lets those who literally create money with the stroke of a
pen to buy it out from them to repay loan obligations. Then the next
generation works as hired hands and dreams of a day they can be like
their fathers. And the cycle starts all over again.

When oil peaked at $145 per barrel in 2008 people started talking
about the US doing something about energy. There was a meeting in
Geneva and bam, oil production went up slightly and oil prices came
down. Meanwhile, large withdrawals from US banks by overseas
depositors, reduced the money supply.

A distributed system of bullion created from the profits of an
alternative energy supply that actually competed on price with the
major oil companies would end this madness.



Though I
wouldn't
suppose, bills should be backed by gravel though it might make heist
a bit hard.

There is way too much gravel in the world to make this workable.
Although the Yap dollar comes close to this vision.

http://www.teachers.cr.k12.de.us/~galgano/yapmoney.htm

Just my plan to make placer mining more
profitable ;-)...................Trig

The split tally was a technique which became common in medieval
Europe, which was constantly short of money (coins) and predominantly
illiterate, in order to record bilateral exchange and debts.

A Hazelwood stick was marked with a system of notches and then split
lengthwise.

The two halves both record the same notches and each party to the
transaction received one half of the marked stick as proof.

Later this technique was refined in various ways and became virtually
tamper proof.

One of the refinements was to make the two halves of the stick of
different lengths. The longer part was called stock and was given to
the party which had advanced money or (other items) to the receiver.
The shorter portion of the stick was called foil and was given to the
party which had received the funds/goods.

Using this technique each of the parties had an identifiable and
tamper-proof record of the transaction.

The split tally was accepted as legal proof in medieval courts and the
Napoleonic Code (1804) still makes reference to the tally stick in
Article 1333. Along the Danube and in Switzerland the tally was still
used in the 20th Century in rural economies.

We could do the same thing with a little more sophistication as an
iPhone or Android App today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=istE1bpoDPg

On Dec 30, 8:47*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:
On Dec 27, 11:02 am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:
On Dec 21, 6:41 am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:
The USA could issue currency not backed by silver or gold. Would
this devalue and debase its currency?

The USA not only *could* do that, but it *HAS BEEN* doing that for a
good half a century or so now.

Not exactly.

Yeah, pretty much exactly.

Not at all. *

Yes, at all.



Money is not printed and handed out by Congress.

Nobody said it was. *Strawman alert!

Well, you've got me arguing against your Strawman! lol. You are
saying Treasury prints the notes. They do not. Bureau of Engraving
prints the notes. But I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about
when the notes are created. This occurs when banks demand the notes.
The notes then get printed and distributed by the Treasury
department. Treasury doesn't print the notes any more than the post
office writes the letters.

So, I'm not talking about your strawman. I'm talking about the
creation of currency - and the necessary debt that it carries the
moment its created. This is a natural consequence of the way we have
set up the Federal Reserve Bank. The Bank creates money in response
to market conditions. This is called elastic money. This is derived
from fractional banking. $1 in deposits allows $10 in loans. When
bank depositors demand currency, its paid out. When there is an
excess of currency it is sent back to Treasury. When there is not
enough currency, Treasury sends notes to the banks. Treasury doesn't
determine money supply - banks do.

When Congress spends money it issues bonds to the Federal Reserve and
they make deposits on behalf of Congress and Congress spends that.
When Congress receives tax money, it ALL goes to pay existing debt,
and unpaid debt is rolled over.

Lincoln to pay for the Civil War (since the European banks of that era
were backing the South in an effort to reverse Jackson's successful
effort to free the USA from foreign banking influence) Lincoln found
out that he had the right to issue notes directly, without an
associated bond. All he had to do to keep things from inflating is to
also pass a tax that redeemed the notes in 20 to 30 years - or have
silver or gold in the treasury to back it. He chose the latter method
since the US had gold and silver on reserve.

The huge benefit is that there is no interest on this issue, as there
is with a bond.

When Lincoln sought to expand the program using taxes to secure the
notes rather than silver, and establish a National Bank - he was shot
at several times by assassins hired by those banking interests - and
eventually they succeeded. Jackson was shot at when he fought the
banks. Garfield too was shot when he fought the banks. McKinley when
he wanted to use California and Alaska gold to back US currency rather
than rely on central banks - was shot. Business panics and banking
crises were stirred up and used to stampede Congress into the passage
of the Federal Reserve Act and the 16th Amendment. We were then
plunged into World War 1. By 1933 - twenty years after the founding
of the Federal Reserve the US was bankrupt. FDR filed for emergency
reorganization of the monetary system of the USA. The European
bankers asked for and got ALL US gold and all retirement savings as
collateral for the right to issue new debt. We were then plunged into
World War 2 - and later the Cold War - which assured that the US would
run up its debt to impossible levels.

This need not be. The US can issue money without debt.




Money is printed in response to banking demand.

Well, no, it isn't.

Yes it is.

*Go read up on 'velocity of money' and study what
makes bank rates go up and down.

You are absolutely confused. Go read about elastic money supply.
Velocity of money is not the same as demand for notes. Sheez. The
system couldn't work if the banks didn't have the right to order
currency when it was needed or send currency away when it wasn't.

The Bureau of Engraving and Printing actually prints the money. *They
do so at Treasury's request. *Treasury prints money in response to
orders from the Fed. *The Fed creates money by issuing loans using a
system of fractional banking. *When there is a demand for notes, they
are ordered from member banks.

Congress doesn't print money. *Congress issues bonds which are
underwritten by the Fed. *Those loans result in bank balances which in
turn result in demand for currency.

http://www.moneyfactory.gov/

The point stands - Congress could issue currency directly without the
mechanism of a bond and avoid Federal debt and the paying of interest
to anyone.

Which was not your original point at all. *Moving goal post alert!

Nonsense. I'm responding to what you say.. Are you suggesting that I
not respond to what you say? lol. Obviously you don't want to engage
in conversation. You are merely looking for excuses to say nasty
things.

You stated "The USA could issue currency not backed by silver or gold.
Would this devalue and debase its currency?"

I responded that not only COULD the USA do that, but that is HAS BEEN
DOING THAT for quite some time.

Lincoln issued the first Greenbacks during the Civil War. JFK issued
silver certificates with EO 11.110 in 1963. The grand total is $4.3
billion. This is not routine or the main way the USA creates
currency. Since the Federal Reserve Act the USA has operated with
about $1,000 billion in currency circulated in bank accounts that
support $20,000 billion in liquid wealth in the USA. ALL of this
wealth is used to secure about $45,000 billion in debts owed by the
government and the people of the USA.

You argued that it has not. *That argument exploded in your face.

Your strawman has exploded. Notes are created in response to banks
asking for them. Treasury does not *create* them. Bureau of
Engraving and Printing prints them. Treasury makes sure they go to
the banks that ordered them. It is you who have said that the US
government produces ALL of its notes without debt. This is not true.
It has that ability, but whenever it has used it, someone got killed.

You now want to shift the goal posts

No I don't. I'm saying the same things I've said from the outset.
The Federal Reserve orders currency from Treasury, and Treasury tells
Bureau of Engraving and Printing to print them and they deliver it to
the banks. The Banks CREATE the currency. Not Treasury or Congress.
When Congress spends money it goes into debt to the Fed.
and act as if you were talking
about CONGRESS doing something when you never mentioned Congress at
all in your original remarks.

Your intellectual dishonesty knows no bounds.





Prior to 1971 the Federal Reserve Notes which were USA's currency, was
redeemable for gold at $35 per troy ounce. Nixon ended that when
there was a run on US gold supply.

Breton Woods was not the same as a true 'backing' by gold, since one
had to be a signatory to the agreement in order to redeem US dollars
for gold. JoeMookcouldn't redeem them for gold.

Setting up a system of rules, institutions, and procedures to regulate
the international monetary system, the planners at Bretton Woods
established the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), which
today is part of the World Bank Group. These organizations became
operational in 1945 after a sufficient number of countries had
ratified the agreement.

The chief features of the Bretton Woods system were an obligation for
each country to adopt a monetary policy that maintained the exchange
rate of its currency within a fixed value plus or minus one percent in
terms of gold and the ability of the IMF to bridge temporary
imbalances of payments.

Note that, as I said, this only applied to SIGNATORIES TO THE BRETON
WOODS AGREEMENT. *It was *NOT* 'backing by gold' in any real sense.



On August 15, 1971, the United States unilaterally terminated
convertibility of the dollar to gold. This action, referred to as the
Nixon shock, created the situation in which the United States dollar
became the sole backing of currencies and a reserve currency for the
member states.

The dollar was always treated as a reserve currency. *It was never, so
far as I recall, the "sole backing of currencies". *A number of
currencies, as well as SDRs, were equivalently treated as 'reserve
currencies'.





After the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 the USA ceded to the Federal
Reserve, a private company with sole right to print money - think of
an insurance company that has a right to sell insurance - but not
unlicensed companies. Federal Reserves notes are printed in response
to the Federal government selling the Reserve bonds, which bear
interest or to demands for cash created b Reserve banks making loans
against a fraction of their deposits.

Wrong. The Treasury (Bureau of Engraving and Printing) prints money,
not the Federal Reserve.

The Treasury only prints money in response to demand from the Fed.
The Treasury cannot print money on its own.

Of course it can. *It DOESN'T, but there is nothing I am aware of in
law that would prevent it from doing so.



The Federal Reserve can muck about with the
apparent money supply through open market operations, but it can't
print money.

Nonsense. *The Federal Reserve system sends orders to Treasury which
orders The Bureau of Engraving and Printing to print notes the Fed
asks for.

In other words, THE FEDERAL RESERVE CAN'T PRINT MONEY. *So much for
your "Nonsense" remark, which your own follow-on discredits.



The Bureau of Engraving and Printing will not turn its presses on
unless the Treasury tells them to. *Treasury cannot tell them to turn
the presses on without orders from the Federal Reserve System. *

Please cite the LAW that PROHIBITS Treasury from printing whatever it
wants.

In point of fact the law states precisely the opposite and allows
Treasure to print something called U.S. notes under Congressional
order which are 'money', predate Federal Reserve Notes, are still
authorized to be printed, and have been issued by Treasury as late as
1971.



Its
the ability of the Federal Reserve to create money in the accounts of
its depositors through issuing loans (including Federal Debt) that
causes the demand for currency in the first place. *Since no one else
has this capacity its fair to say the Fed prints the money. *Its
disingenuous to say the Treasury prints the money. *You might as well
say the Bureau of Engraving and Printing prints the money. *That would
be disingenuous too since its the Fed's loan policies that expand or
contract the availability of currency in the USA.

You need to stop trying to teach your grandmother to suck eggs,
Mookie.

Note that the U.S. Notes I mentioned above are 'currency' and are
printed directly by Treasury. *The Fed is not involved. *

Also note that there is NO requirement that Treasury print notes at
the order of the Federal Reserve. *If you examine the Federal Reserve
Act you will not find the word 'print' anywhere in it.

Further, you should be aware that the Federal Reserve 'creating' money
doesn't necessarily require the printing of ANY notes. *Something like
90% or more of the US money supply doesn't exist as currency at all.



The USA issues bonds to the Federal Reserve or private individuals
qualify for loans and the Reserve prints currency.

Wrong.

Not wrong at all. * We have a money supply that can expand when money
is needed. The term "elastic currency" in the Federal Reserve Act does
not just mean the ability to expand the money supply, but also to
contract it.

Irrelevant. *The Federal Reserve does *NOT* print currency. *Period.
End of discussion.

Mookie mooking on trying to teach his grandmother to suck eggs
elided

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
*truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Thomas Jefferson

William Mook wrote:

The European
bankers asked for and got ALL US gold and all retirement savings as
collateral for the right to issue new debt.

Are you possibly using "European bankers" as a euphemism for "the
Jews"? If so, you wouldn't be the first.

Jim Davis

On Dec 29, 11:45*pm, wrote:
On Dec 30, 1:51*am, Brad Guth wrote:



On Dec 29, 5:34*pm, wrote:

Madoff didn't cause the banking crisis. *Madoff was thrown to the
press to satisfy their need for an easily recognized crook. *Bottom
line, major powers elected to remove currency from the US banking
system and precipitate a crisis to move public attention away from
energy policy during the 2008 election.

True, Ponzi Madoff only screwed a few thousand of us. *The corrupted
federal reserve, our kosher approved SEC and a few too many other
government agencies (including the executive office of our nation) and
their faith-based mafia puppet-masters are what finished us off.

So, when are you going to fix this mess by showing us how it is done?

*~ BG

European bankers, backed principally by the Bank of England, have
attempted to gain control of the output of the USA, just as they have
gained control of all other nations on Earth. *In the 1950s through
the 1980s they paid huge sums of money to third world countries,
ostensibly for development. *They bribed leaders to steal the money
and let them get away with it as long as they secured those debts with
their nation's raw materials. *Those that failed to do this were
assassinated. *Meanwhile economies that grew fat with easy credit and
plenty of cash, were harvested of all their wealth by tightening
credit and creating an economic downturn. *This business cycle is sold
as an act of nature, not as a means for banks to gather the wealth
created by others. *This business cycle approach replaced the war/
taxes cycle of an earlier age after the development of nuclear
weapons.

I believe the best way to proceed is to leave the Earth to the owners
of the bank and for them to loan significant money to those who wish
to move off world. *That way, solar system, and extra-solar resources
are developed by 100s of billions of people spread across the galaxy,
while they receive the benefits of raw materials within the cosmos and
innovations from a diverse and wealthy humanity.

You really think the rich and powerful are going to loan sufficient
loot to those of us (including yourself) to go off-world and
accomplish whatever?

Perhaps if the investment break-even were soon and the subsequent
payback were ten fold, but otherwise why should they bother?

As long as the rich and powerful control the past and thus always
control the future, why should they bother with risking anything on
your off-world stuff, or even with my moon and Venus stuff?

Since you can't revise history in order to reflect the best available
truths or science, then how are we to move forward and exceed unless
we alone can afford to pay 100% of our own way?

Obviously you can't afford to do 0.1% of whatever needs to get
accomplished. So what's next?

Is there even anything of William Mook getting into the next round of
textbooks?

How long will you have to be dead before getting even so much as a
mention in those textbooks and science or physics journals?

~ BG

On Dec 30 2010, 4:38*pm, Jim Davis wrote:
WilliamMookwrote:
The European
bankers asked for and got ALL US gold and all retirement savings as
collateral for the right to issue new debt.

Are you possibly using "European bankers" as a euphemism for "the
Jews"? If so, you wouldn't be the first.

Jim Davis

No, not at all. While some of the most successful banking families
may have identifiable names the ownership of the specific highly
successful banks have nothing to do with the religious affiliations of
their owners. In fact, a banker that bribes third world political
leaders to abscond with the funds so they can get raw materials from
third world countries to obtain those resources at a below market
discount or a banking family that organizes the assassination of a
national leader who has organized a successful competing national bank
isn't really practicing business according to the principles of his
religion any more than a Sicilian drug trafficker is following the
tenets of his religion despite protestations to the contrary. Those
who blame the religious affiliations or nationalities of the
miscreants are missing the point.