SR 68 The Gold Solution is a Lie - Bill Still

[Steven Douglas]

I just watched this clip and I don't see what you are seeing. He doesn't promote the Fed at all and it's my understanding that he wants it abolished. All he is saying is that money should be issued by and work for the people (govt.) - with taxpayers receiving the benefit of income from it vs. the banks.

I never said that he "promoted" the Fed (the actual privately owned controlling body). He does want that "part" of the Fed abolished (i.e., "who" owns it/controls the money supply, regardless what it is called). He is NOT in favor of abolishing the Fed in terms of central control over the fiat currency supply. I said that he "loves the counterfeiting printing press idea, and wants it kept intact, but he wants that given directly over to Congress".

In other words, change ownership, and therefore direct central manipulating currency debasement control from private to public (thus "democratizing it" - PUKE), and change the mechanism and channels by which the COUNTERFEITED FIAT CURRENCY enters into circulation.

Think he's partly right about gold and those that pray to it's alter.

The whole "pray to it's(sic) alter(sic)" characterization is absolutely meaningless, as that is unqualified. Not everyone has the same idea with regard to gold and other hard specie, and its role as currency in the market. Still's statement that "Gold is concentrated money" was stated without explanation, and as if that was a bad thing. He meant to say that it was scarce (a great thing), as he argues that it would end up "concentrated" into the hands of a few. Well, if gold is the ONLY currency (again, fucking "fiat", only now applying strictly to gold) then we could at least argue directly along those lines. I would agree that nothing has been solved, because once again a MONOPOLY on the only acceptable currency will have been established.

For some the question is not whether currency should be centrally controlled/debased or not, but only WHO is most properly suited for that role (i.e. the state or a private entity like the Fed). WRONG FUCKING QUESTION. A choice between lesser evils of thieves is not a choice. There should be no single currency, and no ENTITY in a position to centrally control COMPETING currencies.

I am not in favor of a "gold backed" dollar, because that does nothing to eliminate the original abuses, by collusion between banks and the state. It's not a question of which of these is best suited for central planning or control. I don't want the state OR any private entity involved in central planning of any kind where currency is concerned. That insidious capacity and ability by anyone is the only thing that needs to be abolished. And it's not really a case of abolishment, but rather a REPEAL of all the abolishments-in-effect (taxation, prohibitions and other economic barriers to entry) for COMPETING currencies.

And if there is central control of "A" currency, let it be in its own sandbox, in open competition with other currencies, with ZERO artificial advantages given to any of them, and ZERO artificial barriers to entry for any of them. That is not the case now - which is why you can, with a straight face even, disingenuously suggest that someone can already "buy" (and pay taxes on) other media of exchange -- or "move" to another state. You can move to Utah, the only state that follows the US Constitution (to the degree that it does) as it recognizes gold and silver coin as "legal tender". But that's the state, and has nothing to do with federal government's Barrier To Entry laws and policies with regard even to US minted gold and silver coin, which are treated NOT AS MONEY (even though they are counted as legal tender), but as "commodities" only, and subject to taxation and valuation relative to the privately controlled fiat currency - which is the only medium of exchange the federal government will accept or recognize as payment.

"Democratized" money, my ass.

EDIT: The only reason we even have currency (in any form) as a "medium of exchange" is due to convenience to the market, as currency is orders of magnitude more efficient than barter. If there is only ONE medium of exchange, however, that presents a ONE-TO-MANY relationship between currency and the goods and services they are exchanged for. That "single medium" makes the entire market, and all values of all goods and services in the market, vulnerable to manipulation and wholesale value distortion, to the degree that the medium of exchange can be controlled - by ANYONE, public or private.

The only way to eliminate concentrated manipulations and distortions is for multiple COMPETING media of exchange to exist - each with their own separate market values, in a MANY-TO-MANY relationship (many currencies to many goods and services). The more variety and options available, the more immune ALL currency on the whole to concentrated control and abuses, and the less likely it is that the highly varied supply of media in "CIRCULATION" can EVER DISAPPEAR OR DRY UP THROUGH DEFLATION. In other words, you don't force everyone's eggs into a "TOO EASY TO MANIPULATE, TOO DEPENDENT ON TO FAIL" aggregate basket, and you don't PUNISH substitutions on the currency side.

Multiple competing currencies is the ONLY way that abuse of ANY CURRENCY (hard specie, notes, bitcoins, and anything else used as "money") can be naturally self-correcting, as individuals in the market serve as the ultimate NATURAL checks and balances on all of them. Thus, to anyone who favors of a single currency only (regardless of its form or so-called "backing") - don't chop their hands off. Not right away, at least. Reason with them.

[jclay2]

I think one of Bill's main complaints is that if we used gold as money, that wouldn't stop the banking criminals from practicing fractional reserve banking.

[Steven Douglas]

I think one of Bill's main complaints is that if we used gold as money, that wouldn't stop the banking criminals from practicing fractional reserve banking.

And it wouldn't stop it. It is just as important to note that fractional reserve lending is also not eliminated by virtue of the single national currency Still FAVORS, with legal tender laws fully intact, like we have now (only not controlled by a private entity). Thus, his objection to gold as money cannot be on the basis that it would not prevent fractional reserve lending. There is no magical property inherent in ANY ONE FORM OF CURRENCY, including the one he favors, that makes it immune from fractional reserve lending - not gold coin or fiat currency. That's a non sequitur, because fractional reserve lending is an entirely separate issue.

There are a couple of things that Bill Still - a "left libertarian" - stands for that I am in absolute agreement on (ending fractional reserve lending and forbidding national debt). It is his reasons for wanting to end these that make me part company with him.

Bill Still is a 'Greenbacker' (no direct tax, just steal from everyone by diluting the currency, regardless of the duration). Still is no less a deliberate inflationist than Paul Krugman. Still is a strong proponent of a national fiat currency, as well as strong legal tender laws. He favors legal tender laws because it is the only way that a state can prevent monetary substitutions by the market as the state embarks on a policy of sustained deliberate monetary inflation, or deliberate debasement of the currency. If legal tender laws were not in place, Thiers Law would drive any debased currency quickly out of circulation.

Still wants MORE central planning for more efficient, and more deliberate, "democratized" (<---- socialist collectivist sleaze word alert) control of the money supply, including wealth redistribution by a state which "spends" money created out of thin air into existence. What stands in the way of that? Deficit spending and fractional reserve lending -- aka public and private debt, as thin-air money is LOANED into existence.

Still has stated in the past that his ideas are similar to those of "Social Credit" movement; a complex wealth redistribution scheme with elaborately tortured and convoluted reasoning. The Social Credit movement, founded by a man named C. H. Douglas (no relation to yours truly, thank goodness) has -- wouldn't you know it -- a new factor of production, which belongs to "society" (<---- socialist collectivist sleaze word alert again). This new factor of production that Douglas wanted recognized by economists and policy makers was referred to as "cultural inheritance of society". His idea is that there is an economic value to knowledge, processes and techniques that have been handed down to "society" -- as a collectivized "inheritance" over thousands of years, which belongs equally to everyone (sound familiar?). It is the value of this 'factor of production' that he wanted reclaimed on behalf of "society" (arrogated by the state), and redistributed to individuals as dividends.

[Acala]

The Fed was created by Congress and exists ONLY because Congress chooses to allow it to exist. In other words, Congress approves of, and ultimately allows, the Fed's activities. If it didn't, it could end the Fed tomorrow. All of the sins of the Fed are condoned by Congress. So what advantage would there be in taking the power of issuing fiat money from the Fed and turning it over to the entity that already approves and condones what the Fed has been doing? Does any rational person really think that suddenly the Congress that has condoned massive inflation will curtail it? Or that the Congress that has allowed the banks to run a muck will suddenly want to contain them? Of that a Congress that has been wildly irresponsible with spending money it doesn't have will suddenly become frugal? The whole idea is silly. Government cannot be trusted with the power to create money out of thin air, no matter how it is done.

Transfering the power to issue fiat money from the Fed to the Congress is like a murderer switching his knife from the right hand to the left. The same malevolent entity is still in control and has all the same powers.

[cbc58]

Two Questions:

Are you saying there can be no inflation?

Under your scenario - what would be used as a nationally or globally accepted currency for trade, extension of credit and settlement of debts. Keeping in mind the realities of keeping the economy moving?

[Steven Douglas]

Are you saying there can be no inflation?

Assuming that you mean monetary inflation (actual increase in the aggregate stock)? There would be natural inflation, and deflation, just like there always was, and always would be. For every commodity in exchange. Like corn, land, lumber, labor, you name, it, so much gold, silver, copper, and other competing commodities are produced and made available to consumers each year. There is nothing fixed about any of that supply from the perspective of the consumer. They expand and contract, as natural inflation and deflation. So much of that is saved, or held in reserve. That is natural deflation (greater purchasing power, lower prices).

If you mean artificial monetary inflation, however, as in counterfeit dilution, or deliberate debasement of the currency - no. Never. Whether committed by a state or private individuals, that is a crime against everyone save those who benefit directly from it.

Under your scenario - what would be used as a nationally or globally accepted currency for trade, extension of credit and settlement of debts.

That last has two parts, which are separated.

You said "globally accepted currency", as in singular? Why only one? Dollars, euros, yen, yuan, pesos, lira, dinar, rupies, etc., all exist now. Anyone in the world can, in theory and often in practice, demand payment in any one or all of them, as they are cleared through the market with exchange rates.

Or are you referring to the paradigm of governments, and of a "global reserve currency"? Are you referring to the No Honor Among State Thieves paradigm we have now, as every nation that allows its currency holding sheep to be perpetually shorn in its own currency debauching treadmill, does not, for that very same reason, trust other nations and their debased currencies, but insists instead on a particularly "strong" and "reliable" currency in clearing debts between themselves?

Before I answer, let's take on your second "keeping in mind" part:

Keeping in mind the realities of keeping the economy moving?

I am neither a statist nor a monetarist, so I don't buy into the mass delusion that central planning, control and mass manipulation (read=counterfeit dilution) of a currency, and therefore the market itself, is ever required by a state on the arrogant presumption that it must debase its currency (in the name of "elasticity") in order keep its economy moving, growing, or "more competitive". That is the biggest con ever perpetuated on the world's population, and everyone who is anyone who benefits from it is in on it - with lots of useful idiots with fear-based thinking in place who are buying into the illusion (or sucking from it in reality) to defend it. Left and Right.

Debasement of a currency in the name of market competitiveness (Currency Wars) puts an economy on speed, or steroids. It is like having a nationwide tax on the currency itself in order to promote a collectivized, nationalized, compulsory sale on all goods and services from that nation. You'll sell more only because your currency was ARTIFICIALLY made worth less. The only real winners are those who benefited directly from the counterfeiting and dilution of the currency. And it is far from a zero-sum game. While that "market stimulation" is paid for by a hidden tax on ALL currency holders, it only serves to siphon real goods and services out of that economy, while placing upward pressure on prices of everything domestically.

My Aussie mate in China told me that he worked as a butcher in a packing house in Perth, Australia. He and his mates managed to steal a crate of beef that was marked "For Export To The USA Only". Best beef he had ever tasted in his life, he said. Aussies couldn't get really good beef in Australia without paying a ridiculous premium. That's because their dollars could not compete with OUR dollars at the time. The majority of the really good beef was slated for export to the US, based on US demand and the value of the US dollar relative to OZ dollars. The market substitution in Australia is lamb. Aussie lamb is not in demand by the US, so their lamb remains available to them domestically at reasonable prices.

Any nation with sound currencies circulating (free of deliberate market distortions) will have naturally lower domestic prices, in addition to greater market stability. And that stability includes not having growth fueled by malinvestment, or growth only for the sake for growth, or keeping pace with continual theft. This also serves as a natural consumer protection, as domestic consumers compete for their own products with foreign consumers. Those cheaper domestic prices don't translate well for exports to nations that debase their weakened currencies (in the name of keeping their exports more competitive - pay no attention to the real winners and losers behind the debauchery curtain). The victims in those nations can't afford to import as much. Only those who are debasing the currency (closest to the thin-air money spigots) in those countries can afford the more expensive imports, because they are the CANNIBALS who are STEALING from their own, and are the primary beneficiaries at all times. The "economic activity" they "stimulate" is a matter of survival to all those who are adversely affected, and must keep pace with an artificial treadmill that siphons their life blood and productivity away from them.

ALL are desirous of having more of the stronger currency with the greatest relative value -- even to the point of seeing that as a "currency haven" -- a refuge, or "reserve" against domestic monetary inflation. The problem is, WE wouldn't trust their consistently debauched/devalued currency any more than they do. Governments have never bought into the domestic currency debasement con game, which is why we had Bretton-Woods in the first place, long after Roosevelt ARROGATED/STOLE gold from the population, making it illegal to own. And assuming there are no international legal tender laws (or shouldn't be, more to the point -- in effect there are), we would demand payment (public and private) in the stronger currency only - as that would be the only "acceptable" form of payment. So the problem is still theirs.


ONE LAST THING: You said, "extension of credit, and settlement of debts". Simplistically speaking, there are in effect two competing sources of capital in any economy. One is banks, the other is Privately Accumulated Capital, also known as SAVINGS. In a normal, non-manipulated economy, bank loans and credit are AN EXTENSIONAL SUBSET of privately accumulated capital. One of the gravest, most pernicious distortions wrought by a debased currency is that it taxes privately accumulated capital, or savings, virtually out of existence. The primary winner in that artificial manipulation is the banks, as their source of competition is artificially suppressed to the point where the IDIOTS produced by this paradigm cannot conceive of an economy that runs on anything except bank credit or government distribution spigots. So you don't save for anything, that's stupid. You need credit for everything. My gosh, how could an economy even survive without everyone pitching in the value of their savings?! And no permission required, of course. No bill to pay. We'll just dilute its value for you, whether you are aware of it or not, and use that to fund all the wonderful economic activity that COULD have otherwise been financed by YOU - using YOUR savings as you saw fit.

[MadOdorMachine]

I agree with Bill Still a lot, but I do think he's wrong about Ron Paul. Ron Paul wants Congress to control the money too and end the Fed. Gold is a finite resource, so it would limit government spending. How could he miss this very important distinction? He even brings up this very point in the video, yet is still unable to connect the dots. In other words, he's right about monetary policy, but wrong on Ron Paul. In any case, I find his insight educational as always. I'd love to see him and Ron Paul discuss their differences in an interview. Perhaps that's something that can happen after Ron Paul retires from the House.

[Brian4Liberty]

Bill Stills is correct in that government debt is one of the biggest roots of evil. No disagreement there.

The thought has occurred to me that if gold were the only money, that indeed, it would not take long at all before nearly all of it was in the hands of the Oligarchy. Bill Still seems to have that as part of the basis of his thinking. What he doesn't take into account is the fact that this scenario has occurred, and the elite doesn't want it to happen.

When they have all of the gold, there is none for commerce, or transactions, thus a new currency is required anyway. And when they have all of the gold, it makes their domination far too obvious. They prefer fiat currency, as it allows commerce to function, and also allows them to have even more than they could have under a gold standard. So this particular "concern" about gold is really not a concern.

As for Bill Stills solution of "a strictly quantity-controlled currency, issued and spent directly by government into the economy", the contradiction should be obvious. There would be nothing to control the quantity, as there would be nothing to control the spending. They would spend until the currency became worthless. Now in a world of competing currencies, this would not be a concern. Let them devalue their currency. As a matter of fact, competing currencies would be the one and only thing that might actually force them to control the value of their currency.

As it stands now, we have some semblance of competing currencies, albeit an oligopoly of Central Banks (and crony banksters) that is colluding to devalue their currencies simultaneously. Why not merge them all into a single global currency? It's the next obvious step. Like health care and big Wall St. banks, consolidate, until eventually there is only one. Happy, happy, joy, joy.

Go to the 13 minute mark, and Senator Amy Klobuchar will tell you all you need to know about where our future lies:

[Henry Rogue]

Travlyr’s point about legal tender, and Steven Douglas’s point about the Treasury issuing fiat paper is right on. The courts had it wrong IMO. Whether putting your savings in a bank is an investment or a bailment should not matter if you expect to and agree to get your savings back in species. (Note; investment may imply risk, but I don’t think any court ruled a ponzi scheme as just a bad investment.) Fractional Reserve Banking should be illegal, it is theft. This goes back to an era when bank notes were exchanged for gold or silver coin with the promise that the coin would be redeemed on demand. Today we have no gold or silver backed currency ,but banks still inflate the money supply devaluing the dollar you have saved. How is that not theft of your wealth? Giving this power to the government directly instead of the federal reserve changes nothing. A government issued gold coin as the only legal tender or a gold back paper currency as the only legal tender is no solution if it is either over valued or under valued. The market must determined the medium of exchange and the market must determined the value of that medium, or Gresham’s law will take affect, bad money will drive out good. In our Nations history both the Spanish Dollar and Mexican coin was accepted in this country along side U.S. coinage. If the Mexican Peso coin and the U.S. Dollar coin has the same weight and purity of gold or silver what does it matter who issued it as long as there is no government mandate of the value or government restrictions. Coined precious metals are good forms of mediums of exchange because they are scarce, recognizable, measureable, fungible and easily transferable. Other benefits, The total amounts of precious metals are not easily increased which makes it harder to dilute the money supply and precious metals as a coined medium of exchange makes it more difficult for the government to keep track of. This helps to restrict the size and scope of government, not to mention the ability of government to easily go to war. However if the government dictates what is legal tender, if the government dictates the value of money, if the government allows banks, any bank to fractionalize its’ reserves. We will be right back were we started.

Travlyr’s and Steven Douglas’s economic knowledge as well as probably most of the members of this forum far exceeds my own. I doubt they need my endorsement. Perhaps my words in this post give no value to this thread, but these links are worth reading, A History of Money and Banking in the United States by Murray N. Rothbard http://mises.org/books/historyofmoney.pdf The Case Against the Fed by Murray N. Rothbard http://mises.org/books/fed.pdf

[Weston White]

It should be kept in mind that the constitutional mandate for implementing metals backed currency applies only to the states; ergo, if the federal government intends to devise a nonconvertible (fiat) currency for its own usage, say to ally foreign nations, pay the debts of its instrumentalities, and the like, it has no restraints preventing them from meeting that objective, e.g., to demonetize.

I should think that a new multipart Amendment needs to be ratified to resolve the entire matter, so as to (to suggest a few ideas):

1. Include new metals for use a legitimate currency, i.e., palladium, platinum, rhodium, and perhaps copper as filler (that is when appropriate).

2. Relinquish Congress of all future potential to delegate its vested powers to another governmental branch or to any domestic or foreign entity, group, or instrument.

3. Institute usury as a threat to national security and thusly punishable as a form of sedition, and render fractional-lending and debt-based-lending on par with usury.

4. Cease funding and prevent all war efforts and foreign occupation against nations posing no legitimately verifiable and confirmed threat to the boarders, oceans, and people of the Unites States of America.

5. Severely limit the Executive’s authority to implement Executive Orders and Signing Statements over the states and the people thereof.

6. Cease all “in the red” budgeting and borrowing, save for in circumstances that are exigent to the states or the people thereof, or to the boarders or oceans of the United States of America.

7. Clarify the proper breadth and purpose of general taxation and of income taxation.

8. Reaffirm the federal government under guaranteed republicanism, being with clearly defined and limiting powers.