Thread: Hitler's Greenbacks

Originally Posted by denmason

At the time of the Twelfth century, merry old England, the people had a surplus of woolen clothing. Food and all necessities of life-------------And then bankers came in.

I'd still rather be a miserable banker in the 21st century Germany, thank a happy peasant with a surplus of woolen clothing in 12th century England.
Let me know if you need some woolen underwear for the cold winter months.

I see we can't get away from the German "crimes". Anyways, I thought this was a good idea and it did seem to work very well. I think it worked better than what our money is back by at this time.

I really don't understand how this is relevant. From what I understand the solution of the fiscal crisis in Germany was to set up a currency backed up by a confidence in the government, who promised that there will be no inflation in that currency. I don't really know what the problems at the time were, but somehow I don't think these are the same problems.
The US government already controls the US currency. Are you suggesting that they should freeze the amount of available currency?
Again, I somehow fail to see the parallels between the economy in Hitler's Germany and today's world. And just doing something just because at some point of time at some place it may have been helpful seems rather silly...

Perhaps some more clarification could help a more productive discussion.

Not completely true.
The dollar is backed very strongly by the saudis who accept only dollars for oil. If it weren't for that, the dollar would collapse, instead of limping along.

In the end, currency is backed by trust and nothing else.
When a couple of years ago there was a civil war in one of the Afican countries (I forgot the name) its currency plunged within 2 days to near worthless.

Originally Posted by gugi

The US government already controls the US currency. Are you suggesting that they should freeze the amount of available currency?
Again, I somehow fail to see the parallels between the economy in Hitler's Germany and today's world. And just doing something just because at some point of time at some place it may have been helpful seems rather silly...

Perhaps some more clarification could help a more productive discussion.

The US government does not control the US currency. The Federal Reserve does. The "Federal Reserve" is not a government agency believe it or not. It's like Federal Express... it's just a name. Pretty tricky eh? Fools many people. The Federal Reserve took control of printing our money back in 1913 and is owned and run by bankers, who in turn run our government through the control of our currency.

Originally Posted by denmason

The US government does not control the US currency. The Federal Reserve does. The "Federal Reserve" is not a government agency believe it or not. It's like Federal Express... it's just a name. Pretty tricky eh? Fools many people. The Federal Reserve took control of printing our money back in 1913 and is owned and run by bankers, who in turn run our government through the control of our currency.

I would like to say that I appreciate your bringing these things up. The problem is that, once you start looking into the way things are actually structured and reinterpreting past historical events in the light of who actually benefited, you are forced to Henry Ford's conclusion that "history is bunk," and you are left with a lot of opinions that can't be expressed in polite company because they are illegal.

Originally Posted by denmason

The US government does not control the US currency. The Federal Reserve does. The "Federal Reserve" is not a government agency believe it or not. It's like Federal Express... it's just a name. Pretty tricky eh? Fools many people. The Federal Reserve took control of printing our money back in 1913 and is owned and run by bankers, who in turn run our government through the control of our currency.

That is not exactly true either. The Federal Reserve is very different from Federal Express! Last time I checked the governors of the federal reserve were appointed by the President of the United States. It is a hybrid between private and public, where the private banks advise the public officials and can influence the policy this way, but the notion that the private bankers run the government is just false. The government officials regulate the banking system.
And even in democratic countries with a very centralized banking system politicians don't have a total control of the banking sector. I knew a banker back in my country who just told the prime minister that what he requested is not going to happen because it's impossible. Also within few months of that the banking system collapsed (most banks went bankrupt) and the government fell as well. Ever since the government has had very limited power on what they can do as the country entered a currency board - not so much different from what you describe.

Yes it's probably true, America is in true financial trouble. The $ is weak and heading in one direction as the populus riddle themselves with debt and think that is the way to go. Loosing your house certainly focuses the mind, but there's still the credit card to get you bye.

It's also true that Hitler is not really a person to whom I would look to for guidance on... well.... anything.

I can remember maybe around the early 80's (1980) that the Russians used
barter to trade. Barter means things like, I'll give you 10 ton of corn for 1 ton of copper. They would barter for major supply contracts.

How much would you give Microsoft for a computer operating system for example. Would you give them anything if it didn't work? (sorry I digress)

In England there are communities that barter because they don't trust money or banks. You know, things like, I'll cut your hair if you fit a new plug socket for me. But it gets a lot more complicated with people earning credits that can be used to buy goods and services, just like money. Whole communities are using the process. No taxes, and true value for money.

The banks don't recognise these people. Mind you many people (the majority) don't trust banks or any of the financial institutions. From Insurance to banking to the stock market to the value of the £ all is no longer believed to be secure.

But in 2008, the real issue is how the world is being pulled apart for oil. The money supply is being squeezed because the cost of transport and power is putting pressure on peoples incomes. It has already increased food prices to a level were the really poor are already dead and millions are lining up to join them.

Whose fault is it. Well it is in part the greed of the owners of the power supplies and one significant supply is oil. But Russia is cashing in as well on it gas. It is also the consumers fault for becoming dependent.

What's the answer?

Well in the West, we have the expertise in terms of ".knowledge" to kill the oil industry outside of Western control... overnight. Stop supplies, stop education of foreigners, stop sharing expertise and bring home nationals working abroad. The oil industry outside of Western powers would stop in months.

Nothing to do with chasing Bin Laden. Just stop the greedy *******s who are holding us to ransom for oil until they come begging for food and water,

and they will. In reality, it's not as if they have anything other than oil.

But you will have to go cold in winter and do without your cars for a while to regain control.

Don't believe me, well ask Hitler.

Originally Posted by gugi

That is not exactly true either. The Federal Reserve is very different from Federal Express! Last time I checked the governors of the federal reserve were appointed by the President of the United States. It is a hybrid between private and public, where the private banks advise the public officials and can influence the policy this way, but the notion that the private bankers run the government is just false. The government officials regulate the banking system.
And even in democratic countries with a very centralized banking system politicians don't have a total control of the banking sector. I knew a banker back in my country who just told the prime minister that what he requested is not going to happen because it's impossible. Also within few months of that the banking system collapsed (most banks went bankrupt) and the government fell as well. Ever since the government has had very limited power on what they can do as the country entered a currency board - not so much different from what you describe.

I'm having too much fun here. What or who do you suppose influences the President in who he appoints as governors to the Fed? I would guess that there is some bit of leverage used to make sure he sees the light. I just want to throw down a few quotes:

Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr. 1913 "When the President signs this bill, the invisible government of the monetary power will be legalized....the worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill."

"Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce."(Paul Warburg, drafter of the Federal Reserve Act)

"Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation and I care not who makes its laws."(Mayer Amschel Rothschild)

That's just a few, there are many places to read more about the Fed. Wiki is not one of them. I'll reach out and pick one...Federal Reserve ~ The Enemy Of America It's not the only one, there are many. Have a read.

I do find all this interesting. I would have liked to see Ron Paul as President, especially if he would straighten out our monetary system. But I don't think that's going happen as things are.

Originally Posted by denmason

I'm having too much fun here. What or who do you suppose influences the President in who he appoints as governors to the Fed? I would guess that there is some bit of leverage used to make sure he sees the light.

Uhm, I'm having trouble following you - you seem to be advocating a stronger political influence on the currency management. How does that change who influences whom? Or do you suppose that in countries where the currency management is a responsibility of a purely governmental entity there is less influence from the private sector?

Could you instead point out what you think are the main problems with the current system and how they will be solved by converting the federal reserve to a purely governmental agency. And how would you deal with the potential negatives of the new system?

Originally Posted by denmason

I do find all this interesting. I would have liked to see Ron Paul as President, especially if he would straighten out our monetary system.

How exactly is Ron Paul going to straighten out the monetary system? He can't go to the gold standard and I have no idea why would somebody want put rigid equivalence between the size of an economy and commodities.

You are arguing that under the current system the government is making bad decisions (because they are influenced by the market), so how do you ensure that under any other system the governments remain always perfect and make no bad decisions whatsoever?

As it was pointed out earlier for the few cases when a totalitarian government has brought an economic success, there are at least ten other cases where a totalitarian government as botched things down in the worst way possible. Plenty of historical experiments, none successful in the long term.