Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: New Documentary: THE SECRET OF OZ

  1. #1

    Default New Documentary: THE SECRET OF OZ

    YouTube - Intro THE SECRET OF OZ - more info @ www.secretofOz.com

    The creator and narrator of The Money Masters, Bill Still, is back with a brand new documentary called The Secret Of Oz. This forthcoming film appears to be a more up to date version of The Money Masters, while at the same time presenting the original message behind L. Frank Baum's book The Wizard Of Oz about a sound money system.
    Last edited by Jodo; 06-02-2009 at 04:33 PM.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Default

    Another interesting documentary. I'm bookmarking this. Thank you thank you!

  4. #3

    Default

    I read about the Wizard of Oz secret meaning about a decade ago. Then I also read the debunking of this interpretation. The debunking seemed to make sense. But more and more, I think the debunking is to get one not to understand the true nature of the story (like so many things).
    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of apportionment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  5. #4

    Default

    I watched the preview and went to the site www.SecretOfOz.com. Here is a quote from the site:

    I've said it before, I'll say it again, the question is not what backs the money -- gold, silver or nothing -- it's who controls its quantity. Even if you mandate government controlling the quantity of gold-backed money -- as Article 1, Section 8 puts it, "... regulate the Value thereof ...." -- history has shown that once you strap the money supply to gold, the plutocrats will simply manipulate the quantity of gold and thereby have defacto control in no time flat. This has happened time and time again in history.
    So what do you guys think of this? There has been a huge push lately for people to start investing in gold, especially on this forum. Are we all being duped?

  6. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sevin View Post
    So what do you guys think of this? There has been a huge push lately for people to start investing in gold, especially on this forum. Are we all being duped?
    http://www.freedomforceinternational...tion=meetstill
    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of apportionment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  7. #6

    Default

    Like Peter Schiff says, would you rather have Nancy Pelosi controlling the printing presses?

  8. #7

    Default

    Right, and I agree that the giving politicians the power to make money instead of bankers is not the solution. Personally, I believe private competing currencies is the solution. But don't you worry that if the U.S. went to a gold standard, the bankers could control the supply of gold, and therefore, the wealth of the people?

  9. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sevin View Post
    Right, and I agree that the giving politicians the power to make money instead of bankers is not the solution. Personally, I believe private competing currencies is the solution. But don't you worry that if the U.S. went to a gold standard, the bankers could control the supply of gold, and therefore, the wealth of the people?
    I favor competing currencies. Gold or a basket of commodities, etc., seems to make the most sense to me.
    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of apportionment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  10. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Danke View Post
    I favor competing currencies. Gold or a basket of commodities, etc., seems to make the most sense to me.
    How about 50/50 gold/oil? Gold because it is money and oil because it is such an essential commodity for modern society.

  11. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sevin View Post
    I watched the preview and went to the site www.SecretOfOz.com. Here is a quote from the site:



    So what do you guys think of this? There has been a huge push lately for people to start investing in gold, especially on this forum. Are we all being duped?
    Well they've been depressing the price for some time. Ultimately it has always been the best way to store wealth long-term.. the free market is shining through. Manipulating gold when it is currency is a bit different than when it is not.. because ultimately they can affect prices, interest rates, loans, etc, similar to what they do now.. except the difference is that now they can just do it whereas before they had to lose some wealth and put some effort into it.

    I like Ron Paul's idea of having competing currencies.. that way of they start to manipulate one form of currency people can simply move to another. The rich banksters will always try to play games, but it is important to set them back however and whenever possible, because the longer they remain in the control the more wealth and liberty they are able to steal from society.
    Last edited by dannno; 06-02-2009 at 06:43 PM.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  12. #11

    Default

    I really hope somebody posts this when it is released. Too bad it can't be uploaded to google video.. though it might be a good one to own. I have a legit copy of The Money Masters.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  13. #12

    Default

    Money Masters is a leftist monetarist anti-fed documentary.

    The people there don't understand Austrian economics, or the case for gold.

    Whenever someone brings up Money Masters at Mises.org, they get laughed at.
    http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/3868.aspx
    Last edited by Epic; 06-02-2009 at 07:04 PM.

  14. #13

    Default

    I KEEP NO SECRETS!

    I'M NOT A COMMIE!

    I swear!
    "You know not what you are given, but forever will you know what has been taken away from you..."

    "As long as we live beyond our means we are destined to live beneath our means." - Ron Paul at a CNBC Debate in Michigan (10/09/07)

  15. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Epic View Post
    Money Masters is a leftist monetarist anti-fed documentary.

    The people there don't understand Austrian economics, or the case for gold.

    Whenever someone brings up Money Masters at Mises.org, they get laughed at.
    http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/3868.aspx
    Well, there is evidence that moneyed interests have been able to manipulate the gold supply for their ends, which is why I think that government should not be mandating any sort of currency. People should be able to trade whatever they want...however, I see no problem with the government issuing gold or silver as tender for tax payment purposes, etc..

    I don't really see how they are leftist just cause they don't support the gold standard.. they do a great job calling out the Fed and proving how the banking system steals wealth from individuals and society.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  16. #15

    Default

    The video promotes the idea of a government issuing it's own money, free from debt. While that would solve some problems we face today, I believe it would create even worse problems.

    Any stable system will have equal balances, and interest on debt is a balance. Taking (or creating) money without interest frees it from the destructive nature of usury, but that destructive nature is an important balance. Without it there is no restraint on inflation, a form of balance that comes about naturally in the absence of planned balance, but then it's not just the one who incurred the debt that pays the price of balance.

  17. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by enjerth View Post
    The video promotes the idea of a government issuing it's own money, free from debt. While that would solve some problems we face today, I believe it would create even worse problems.

    Any stable system will have equal balances, and interest on debt is a balance. Taking (or creating) money without interest frees it from the destructive nature of usury, but that destructive nature is an important balance. Without it there is no restraint on inflation, a form of balance that comes about naturally in the absence of planned balance, but then it's not just the one who incurred the debt that pays the price of balance.
    That's why it is important to follow the rest of the Constitution, too. There is no reason to have government pay interest on money it is spending on behalf of other people. The moral hazard has already been removed because it isn't their money.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  18. #17

    Default

    I've said it before, I'll say it again, the question is not what backs the money -- gold, silver or nothing -- it's who controls its quantity. Even if you mandate government controlling the quantity of gold-backed money -- as Article 1, Section 8 puts it, "... regulate the Value thereof ...." -- history has shown that once you strap the money supply to gold, the plutocrats will simply manipulate the quantity of gold and thereby have defacto control in no time flat. This has happened time and time again in history.
    Most of the people on this forum (as well as Ron Paul) do not believe the above, but I tend to agree. Historical evidence that the amount of gold (and other metals) in circulation can and has been manipulated seems to be pretty easy to come by nor is it hard to believe that such events can and have occurred.

    In fact I don't think there are any sure or easy answers when it comes to monetary theory. I think good execution (no matter what regime is in place) is more important than any on-paper theory. Surely having congress control the amount of fiat money being issued is conceivably worse than an independent [quasi-governmental] Fed doing it.

    Anyway once you go along this line of thinking, Hayek's idea of privately issued fiat money is suddenly not as ridiculous as it sounds.

  19. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sevin View Post
    I watched the preview and went to the site www.SecretOfOz.com. Here is a quote from the site:



    So what do you guys think of this? There has been a huge push lately for people to start investing in gold, especially on this forum. Are we all being duped?
    You can manipulate it so that gold is more valuable by hoarding it, but that doesn't really harm the economy (save to the extent that the government has high taxes in order to gather their hoard of gold). You can't manipulate it such that there is more gold than there actually is, or at least, not normally. The US had some success in doing this up until 1971. If you use circulating gold coins, then there is no way to manipulate the price down. All you can do is restrict supply, which makes those who are holding gold richer (which I think is what that quote was referring to).

    However, that was really only the case with mercantilist economies. In a free economy, even that type of manipulation is difficult. When people hoard gold, they don't get any real economic benefit, unless they create their hoard when there was a lot of gold, and spend it when there is little, in which case it's a good thing because that creates a speculative market which would help to regulate the price of gold. If there is only one hoard, the owner of the hoard gets no benefit, because each piece of gold he draws out of the economy is more expensive than the last, while each piece he spends, buys less than the last--it ends up being a zero sum game. By collaborating with rich people, it could enrich a few at the expense of the many, though that expense is the result of the taxation required to create the hoard rather than the change in the value of gold (which on the whole is always neutral, all other things being even).

    The only way I could see a benefit would be for an entity to hoard gold and wait for a large increase in population, which would mean that the supply of gold per person has gone down, meaning they can purchase more labor with it than they could have had they spent it right away, but that is just one of the benefits of saving. The only real crime is the taxation.

  20. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tmosley View Post
    You can manipulate it so that gold is more valuable by hoarding it, but that doesn't really harm the economy (save to the extent that the government has high taxes in order to gather their hoard of gold). You can't manipulate it such that there is more gold than there actually is, or at least, not normally. The US had some success in doing this up until 1971. If you use circulating gold coins, then there is no way to manipulate the price down. All you can do is restrict supply, which makes those who are holding gold richer (which I think is what that quote was referring to).

    However, that was really only the case with mercantilist economies. In a free economy, even that type of manipulation is difficult. When people hoard gold, they don't get any real economic benefit, unless they create their hoard when there was a lot of gold, and spend it when there is little, in which case it's a good thing because that creates a speculative market which would help to regulate the price of gold. If there is only one hoard, the owner of the hoard gets no benefit, because each piece of gold he draws out of the economy is more expensive than the last, while each piece he spends, buys less than the last--it ends up being a zero sum game. By collaborating with rich people, it could enrich a few at the expense of the many, though that expense is the result of the taxation required to create the hoard rather than the change in the value of gold (which on the whole is always neutral, all other things being even).

    The only way I could see a benefit would be for an entity to hoard gold and wait for a large increase in population, which would mean that the supply of gold per person has gone down, meaning they can purchase more labor with it than they could have had they spent it right away, but that is just one of the benefits of saving. The only real crime is the taxation.

    Ya this makes me a bit skeptical of their lack of faith in the gold standard.. but damn, The Money Masters spends so much time going through the history of banking that it's still really worth the watch anyway.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  21. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    Ya this makes me a bit skeptical of their lack of faith in the gold standard.. but damn, The Money Masters spends so much time going through the history of banking that it's still really worth the watch anyway.
    They probably just don't understand where the damage was coming from, or how the elites were actually getting rich. You can't really manipulate gold to make yourself wealthy without luck/insight (free market speculation), or corruption and the power to tax (as was the case when gold was manipulated, thus the quote by Jefferson about inflation and deflation leaving your children penniless).

  22. #21

    Default

    "This video has been removed by the user."
    Rules to gain ground for our efforts. Remember we are the role models for liberty don't abuse it.
    Constructive criticism
    No condescending tones
    Allow room for disagreement
    Be respectful
    It takes time
    Don't flip out when "bad" things happen
    Be forward looking and be part of the solution not just the reaction
    There is no perfect candidate
    Support freedom locally as well as nationally
    Don't worry about negatives said against us but instead worry about giving something positive to say.

  23. #22
    Rules to gain ground for our efforts. Remember we are the role models for liberty don't abuse it.
    Constructive criticism
    No condescending tones
    Allow room for disagreement
    Be respectful
    It takes time
    Don't flip out when "bad" things happen
    Be forward looking and be part of the solution not just the reaction
    There is no perfect candidate
    Support freedom locally as well as nationally
    Don't worry about negatives said against us but instead worry about giving something positive to say.

  24. #23

  25. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sevin View Post
    I watched the preview and went to the site www.SecretOfOz.com. Here is a quote from the site:

    So what do you guys think of this? There has been a huge push lately for people to start investing in gold, especially on this forum. Are we all being duped?
    How can they "manipulate" it. That scumbag keep saying "they'd manipulate it" but doesn't say HOW?

    Quote Originally Posted by sevin View Post
    Right, and I agree that the giving politicians the power to make money instead of bankers is not the solution. Personally, I believe private competing currencies is the solution. But don't you worry that if the U.S. went to a gold standard, the bankers could control the supply of gold, and therefore, the wealth of the people?
    Yes, absolutely, bankers could increase the gold's supply by producing more of it through their droppings

    Again, HOW?

    Quote Originally Posted by stag15 View Post
    How about 50/50 gold/oil? Gold because it is money and oil because it is such an essential commodity for modern society.
    How about letting the people/market choose?

    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    I like Ron Paul's idea of having competing currencies.. that way of they start to manipulate one form of currency people can simply move to another. The rich banksters will always try to play games, but it is important to set them back however and whenever possible, because the longer they remain in the control the more wealth and liberty they are able to steal from society.
    Again, HOW? Are they magicians?

    Quote Originally Posted by Epic View Post
    Money Masters is a leftist monetarist anti-fed documentary.

    The people there don't understand Austrian economics, or the case for gold.

    Whenever someone brings up Money Masters at Mises.org, they get laughed at.
    http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/3868.aspx
    +1

    Fricking commies just don't give up, he just took the knowledge discovered byAustrian Economics about understanding of FRB & turned it around as if it was some "secret" expose

    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    Well, there is evidence that moneyed interests have been able to manipulate the gold supply for their ends, which is why I think that government should not be mandating any sort of currency. People should be able to trade whatever they want...however, I see no problem with the government issuing gold or silver as tender for tax payment purposes, etc..
    I agree government shouldn't mandate any currency (nor should they issue any) but how would "moneyed interests" "manipulate" gold supply? HOW?

    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    I don't really see how they are leftist just cause they don't support the gold standard.. they do a great job calling out the Fed and proving how the banking system steals wealth from individuals and society.
    It's not about the lack of support for gold-standard but rather their support for government-issued toilet-paper; what he's proposing is nothing new, here's one of the 10 planks on Communist Manifesto : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_manifesto

    5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
    Just because he "exposes" Fed doesn't mean sh!t if he lies about things to mislead his viewers; it's like Republicans "exposing" Democrats & vice versa for Democrats but that doesn't mean that either one is any good.

    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    That's why it is important to follow the rest of the Constitution, too. There is no reason to have government pay interest on money it is spending on behalf of other people. The moral hazard has already been removed because it isn't their money.
    Please, stop buying into Bill SHILL's lies without doing your proper research. The interest "paid" by Treasury is handed BACK to the Treasury as Fed "profits" which often EXCEEDS the interest "paid" - the Fed's "profits" include interest "paid" by Treasury + interest earned on loans to other banks & institutions, etc

    Bill SHILL doesn't even understand such a BASIC thing about Fed (or PRETENDING not to) & tells lies to the viewers that "oh, Government/Treasury 'pays' interest to the Fed"
    This lie has been dealt with, right on this forum, in several threads, in the last few days, you may check'em out if you want. Even a simple Wikisearch would have revealed it in it's introductory section of the Federal Reserve System - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System
    You can check out advanced sources be it Fed's website, Treasury or whatever (NOT conspiracy websites), the fact is that Bill SHILL is a liar & wants

    So henceforth if you want to send a video to someone to expose the current monetary system then I'd highly recommend using the following video, it's done by real "Austrians" unlike some SHILL who borrows nearly all his knowledge from Austrian Economics & then perverts to mislead the masses



    Quote Originally Posted by jon_perez View Post
    Most of the people on this forum (as well as Ron Paul) do not believe the above, but I tend to agree. Historical evidence that the amount of gold (and other metals) in circulation can and has been manipulated seems to be pretty easy to come by nor is it hard to believe that such events can and have occurred.
    Again, HOW do they "manipulate" it?

    Quote Originally Posted by tmosley View Post
    You can manipulate it so that gold is more valuable by hoarding it, but that doesn't really harm the economy (save to the extent that the government has high taxes in order to gather their hoard of gold). You can't manipulate it such that there is more gold than there actually is, or at least, not normally. The US had some success in doing this up until 1971. If you use circulating gold coins, then there is no way to manipulate the price down. All you can do is restrict supply, which makes those who are holding gold richer (which I think is what that quote was referring to).

    However, that was really only the case with mercantilist economies. In a free economy, even that type of manipulation is difficult. When people hoard gold, they don't get any real economic benefit, unless they create their hoard when there was a lot of gold, and spend it when there is little, in which case it's a good thing because that creates a speculative market which would help to regulate the price of gold. If there is only one hoard, the owner of the hoard gets no benefit, because each piece of gold he draws out of the economy is more expensive than the last, while each piece he spends, buys less than the last--it ends up being a zero sum game. By collaborating with rich people, it could enrich a few at the expense of the many, though that expense is the result of the taxation required to create the hoard rather than the change in the value of gold (which on the whole is always neutral, all other things being even).

    The only way I could see a benefit would be for an entity to hoard gold and wait for a large increase in population, which would mean that the supply of gold per person has gone down, meaning they can purchase more labor with it than they could have had they spent it right away, but that is just one of the benefits of saving. The only real crime is the taxation.
    Why would you "hoard" gold if you could earn interest on it by depositing it & lending it out? And if someone still wants to "hoard" then that's their property-right

    +1 for the rest of the comment

    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    Ya this makes me a bit skeptical of their lack of faith in the gold standard.. but damn, The Money Masters spends so much time going through the history of banking that it's still really worth the watch anyway.
    Again, PLEASE DO NOT use Money Masters or Secret of oz or any other BS floating out there on youtube (there's a glut of "expose" videos on youtube which DON'T HAVE A CLUE), such videos will only push people away from not only sound money but away from RON PAUL because he's the strongest advocate of it

    Quote Originally Posted by tmosley View Post
    They probably just don't understand where the damage was coming from, or how the elites were actually getting rich. You can't really manipulate gold to make yourself wealthy without luck/insight (free market speculation), or corruption and the power to tax (as was the case when gold was manipulated, thus the quote by Jefferson about inflation and deflation leaving your children penniless).
    +1 for the rest of the comment but......

    Please refrain from using that quote about Jefferson because it's FAKE because the word "deflation" was not in use during his time
    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_jefferson
    You can check other advanced sources if you want.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ok, here's how they used to "manipulate", which wasn't "manipulation" but rather FRAUD (fractional-reserve-banking) & government not prosecuting fraud is fault of the government, NOT of the gold-standard

    OK so let's say interest-rate is 5% then you & I can only earn 5 oz on every 100 oz that we lend BUT due to fractional-banking, banks could earn 10 times (10% reserves) or 20 times (on 5% reserves) of that, that is, 50-100 oz on EVERY 100 oz they had, & that would radically expand their ability to attract gold BUT again, the problem is NOT gold but rather the fractional-reserve FRAUD & governments in the past have many times come to their rescue by allowing them to "suspend payment of specie" (allowing banks to NOT pay back their customers in gold, on demand) as well as through "corporate personhood" which LIMITS their liabilities to the extent of the company's liability, which should NOT be the case at all as on the free-market, INDIVIDUALS are held responsible (NOT fictional entities like "company") so if they can't pay back their customers then their PERSONAL ASSETS will be seized to pay it off but government has protected them from this through laws of "corporate personhood"

    Similar thing with the government-controlled gold-standard that was between 1933-1971, Americans weren't allowed to turn in their dollars to the Treasury in return for gold/silver, that was specifically because so that government could creating more dollars than they had in gold; if the citizens could return them for gold then they would as government started inflating & they'd see the price of gold move higher in dollar-terms than the set peg (the peg was 1 oz = $35 during this period, it was previously 1 oz= $20 before FDR stole Americans' gold & handed them toilet-paper in return)

    I'd definitely NOT want government to issue ANY currency, because government is a coercive monopoly & sooner or later they'll get greedy enough to manipulate it & then shove down people's throats so it's better to have a complete "separation of money & State".
    Fractional-banking (non-contractual) should be treated for what it is - fraud, & "corporate personhood" should be gotten rid of so that would be limit chances of banks engaging in fractional-banking in secret because as soon as they do, it would be reflected the value of the currency as it always does & people will want to "cash in" those notes at face-value (for example, their 10-gram note would lose value to 9 or 8 grams or whatever depending on how much they're inflating) & without "corporate personhood", they'd have to repay their customers, one way or another, since if the company's assets aren't enough to pay them of then those running the bank/company would have to give up their PERSONAL PROPERTY to pay them off.
    There is enormous inertia a tyranny of the status quo in private and especially governmental arrangements. Only a crisis actual or perceived produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable
    - Milton Friedman

  26. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Or Nothing II View Post
    Why would you "hoard" gold if you could earn interest on it by depositing it & lending it out? And if someone still wants to "hoard" then that's their property-right
    It's even better than that. Putting anything into circulation places downward pressure on the value of all like things in circulation. If you are holder of anything of value, the best thing you could hope for is that others would "hoard" it - take it out of circulation completely.

    Savers/hoarders are the spenders' best friend.

    There are two types of thinkers who consider hoarding as a necessarily bad thing, even generally speaking: 1) idiots who think only in terms of quantity of supply, while ignoring relative value due to scarcity, and 2) Scoundrels and Ponzi schemers, like FDR and banksters, who use the term "hoarder" as an epithet to vilify anyone who threatens to expose the scam - namely, those who exercise their property rights (as in the case of a bank run) - people who don't trust promises and actually want take possession of what is rightfully theirs.

    Let me make it clear to you that the banks will take care of all needs except of course the hysterical demands of hoarders—and it is my belief that hoarding during the past week has become an exceedingly unfashionable pastime in every part of our nation. - Franklin Roosevelt, Fireside "Bank Holiday" Chat
    That was the second type: the scoundrel who spoke as a champion and defender of Ponzi embezzlers, vilifying ordinary people in the exercise of their rights.





« Previous Thread | Next Thread »


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •