patrick.net

Mikhail Bakunin was quite an anti-Semite, but I think he has a couple of good points here about crony capitalists actually being great fans of Marx because, like communists, crony capitalists also love the power that centralized state control and central banks give them.

If he would have limited his blanket accusations against all Jews and included the British royal family and the old WASP elite of New England as members of that conspiracy against the public, he'd have had more credibility.

Now, in this entire Jewish world, which constitutes an exploiting sect, a people of leeches, a voracious parasite, Marx feels an instinctive inclination and a great respect for the Rothschilds. This may seem strange. What could there be in common between communism and high finance? Ho ho! The communism of Marx seeks a strong state centralization, and where this exists there must inevitably exist a state central bank, and where this exists, there the parasitic Jewish nation, which speculates upon the labor of the people, will always find the means for its existence.

In reality this would be for the proletariat a barrack regime, --- - this Jewish world is today largely at the disposal of Marx or Rothschild. I am sure that, on the one hand, the Rothschilds appreciate the merits of Marx, and that on the other hand, women, converted into a uniform mass, would rise, fall asleep, work and live at the beat of the drum; the privilege of ruling would be in the hands of the skilled and the learned, with a wide scope left for profitable crooked deals carried on by the Jews, who would be attracted by the enormous extension of the international speculations of the national banks.

Etude sur les juifs allemands, 1869

Bakunin was definitely right about the despotic nature of Marxism:

Bakunin is remembered as a major figure in the history of anarchism, an opponent of Marxism, especially of the dictatorship of the proletariat; and for his predictions that Marxist regimes would be one-party dictatorships ruling over the proletariat, not rule by the proletariat.

AmericanKulak says

In the US, we'd quickly have a currency crisis with physical metal because of the ~$1T trade deficit with China Alone.

On the other hand, the outsourcing bullshit would end pretty quick as well. It would become prohibitive to import from China, nobody in the States would be able to gather enough physical metal to import stuff.

Yes, America would have to put up real metal to import from China, and that would be a very good thing after a turbulent period of conversion. It would encourage local manufacturing and would prevent any massive imbalance of trade.

Right now, America just keeps getting deeper in debt and keeps playing all kinds of games to force people to accept US dollars, like providing arms to the murderous Saudis in exchange for their promise to demand only US dollars for Saudi oil. That particular game might be just about over.

All of the derivatives and market legerdemain, which amount to private sector speculative money printing, are only possible because of printing press money spun out of thin air. It is impossible for all of the generated money and the crises they invite to be backed by actual product or commodity.

Is that one of the reasons the banksters are sweating bullets? The house of cards is collapsing when somebody has to show something other than printing press paper or figures on a computer screen? The QFS will allow for infinite fraud controlled by the few. They don't even want the fiat paper promissory notes out there any more. They have to go to a purely digitized money. First, they eliminated the commodity backed currency. Now, they have to eliminate the hand held currency, too. No bearer notes outside of the controlled digital realm.

AmericanKulak says

The Friedman solution of GDP growth + 0.5-1% issuance would work fine and dandy. You got enough money to match actual growth + a smidge of small inflation to help debtors and encourage best use of capital. This would be locked in by Constitutional Amendment and out of the control of Congress or President; it would happen automatically.

Silver could work, at least domestically, but we wouldn't want it for our massive trade surplus otherwise China would pull a reverse Opioum War and hoard all our minted Silver. So maybe a domestic silver dollar - actual coins.

It would also have to be the law that ALL transactions, including wages and salaries under $2000 (adjusted for CPI/etc.) be paid in the physical. That means the Koch Brothers have to pay their chicken pluckers in Silver Coins, not banknotes for silver.

Gold supply naturally inflates as more is found, and might be about to inflate a lot because of the find in Uganda.

Silver historically inflates faster than gold.

So I'm saying that the currency supply could keep up with GDP growth.

I don't see how China could hoard when they also need to spend. The point of the currency is ultimately to spend it to get labor to happen. Labor is the real value. Gold and silver are only a way to measure and exchange it - a way which cannot be ridiculously inflated by the Fed in order to steal labor.

I love the idea that everyone would be obligated to pay wages in physical silver, but I'd add one condition: that the silver be valued by WEIGHT alone and not by "dollars". No debasing by redefining what a dollar is. Hell, we could go back to literally using a pound of silver to mean a pound.

Ceffer says

First, they eliminated the commodity backed currency. Now, they have to eliminate the hand held currency, too.

Good point.

And the answer is to go 180 degrees, back to physical silver.

Patrick says

Well yes, the US government wouldn't tolerate it, but economically speaking, I think gold and silver would work just fine for Panama. I don't think it could all be bought up in the first place, and in the second place, prices would re-adjust to whatever level of gold and silver were around.

No, gold mines are subsidized by the US government to keep prices down. We found that out with Barrick. This is why the stock price doesn't correspond to the rise in gold price.

This has SEVERAL times created shortages as well.

The federal reserve can create as much money as it needs to create to bribe, extort, or murder anybody they wish.

We could do crypto but it's the same problem.

To put it simply, wealth comes from production.

The Feds/Government shouldn't print money like they do, because we are actually making Zimbabwe look respectable in the inflation category!

North Korea has a central bank?

GNL says

North Korea has a central bank?

They do. How productive are they?

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Central-Bank-of-the-Democratic-Peoples-Republic-of-Korea

I would argue systems are economic power. And America may be having a failing system but it is better than some right now.

Panama does not have a central bank - most interesting, as it has a substantial banking and financial services sector.

More: https://mises.org/library/panama-has-no-central-bank

Jews!

Patrick says

Why does any country need a central bank?

To enslave them.

All the problems of going to an honest system are legitimate, but remember, we only have them because of the central bank.
Griffin lays out a very detailed plan for unwinding our economy from central banking.

But I think it's far to late, and we likely will be forced out of central banking by free market principles driving us ever closer to complete economic collapse.

NuttBoxer says

Griffin lays out a very detailed plan for unwinding our economy from central banking.

Thanks @NuttBoxer Do you have a link to that plan, or a summary of it?

It's the last chapter in his book. Good chance someone's published it online somewhere, but I have just have the physical.

But do they allow the reverse, getting gold for rubles?

cisTits says

They have been selling gold coins since 2009. Now it would be just fixed to a set price and done so tax free.

If both of those are true, a fixed price and tax free, then the ruble would literally be as good as gold, except for the risk of default, which is always significant. That is, you might hold rubles and Russia might unilaterally decide to stop giving you the same amount of gold for them.

So this is another threat to the US dollar, which is backed by nothing by the Saudi demand to get dollars for oil and the demand of the US government to get paid taxes in US dollars.

I mean they will be tempted to stop the convertibility of paper rubles to gold.

Governments love power, and the power to print money is a big power.

The only countries left in 2011 without a Central Bank owned or controlled by the Rothschild Family are:

1.Cuba
2.North Korea
3.Iran
In the year of 2000 there were seven countries without a Rothschild owned or controlled Central Bank:

Afghanistan
Iraq
Sudan
Libya
Cuba
North Korea
Iran
https://fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/only-three-countries-left-without-a-rothschild-central-bank/252779

Patrick says

I mean they will be tempted to stop the convertibility of paper rubles to gold.

Governments love power, and the power to print money is a big power.

The ultimate power imo.

REpro says

Afghanistan
Iraq
Sudan
Libya

Interesting, between 2000 and 2011 all those countries where invaded by the US MIC.

Ahh, had a good laugh reading that one..

This is why the US killed Gaddafi:

https://libyadiary.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/muammar-gaddafi-introduced-the-gold-dinar-as-africas-single-currency/

Iran is on America's shitlist because they accept Euros for oil.

Gaddafi had a lot of ideas that didn't jive with the globalists. And we all know the Clinton's don't mind getting their hands dirty.

Yeah, the central bankers are the "money changers" of the world who create an economy with war ... and war demands elastic currency. We don't need central banks, and the founding fathers said we should never allow debasement of money in America. "War Is A Racket" so central banks are not needed... they are wanted by power hungry people in order to take advantage of "the people." Since gold is inelastic and will not support wars, elastic money is the best option for central bankers.

Elastic Money
https://sovren.media/p/222921/b2a181547739ae4cbce06f563bcb9950

Using gold as you describe would liberate everyone.
"Gold must be in the cash holdings of everybody. Everybody must see gold coins changing hands, must be used to having gold coins in his pockets, to receiving gold coins when he cashes his paycheck, and to spending gold coins when he buys in a store." - Ludwig von Mises

That was a key factor in freeing everyone with the Constitution. Roger Sherman worked tirelessly for gold & silver money. It worked pretty well when it was used.
https://sovren.media/c/ron-paul-revolution/234780/8e9ebb60501e89374d4701008c063148

I agree, except that I think the standard should be silver instead of gold, for several reasons:

- silver is much more available
- the silver supply grows faster than the gold supply, ensuring that it can keep up with demand
- gold can be priced in terms of silver
- the US Constitution itself says in Section 10, “no state…shall make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.”

So we should have only two forms of currency:

1. silver metal coins, which never default
2. promises of silver metal coins, which may default and must be clearly marked as having that risk

Gold is fine, but it's just too confusing to have two metals independent of each other. If you are doing a large transaction, it's fine to do it with gold at the current price of gold coins in silver.

Note that promises of metal can actually be worth more than the physical metal, as happened with the Amsterdam Wisselbank, which had a perfect record for centuries before finally defaulting. People prefer the convenience of the paper promise if they are absolutely sure the promise will be honored on demand, every single time.

Patrick says

the US Constitution itself says in Section 10, “no state…shall make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.

What does the constitution say about the federal government making currency?

GNL says

Patrick says

the US Constitution itself says in Section 10, “no state…shall make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.

What does the constitution say about the federal government making currency?

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript

Only Congress can coin money, and it can only be in terms of gold and silver.

Patrick says

None of these countries, undergoing the extremely painful process of losing their Reserve Currency Status, had our entitled narcissistic 'Democracy', DEI military, and NUCLEAR ARSENAL....
We gonna pitch a fit.

GNL says

What does the constitution say about the federal government making currency?

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

-10th Amendment

cisTits says

Nope. It just says Congress has that power, but doesn't say/restrict how Congress may implement it.

And the FEDERAL government is not restricted to gold and silver, either.

Again, see above.

to finance wars

If that's true, then the 10th amendment is meaningless. Either the government cannot do it unless it's already specified in the Constitution, or they can do whatever they fuck they want. The power to coin money was given to the states, and when this document was written(context), the states held all the power, the feds held almost none.

Seems you're in the whatever-the-fuck-they want camp. Congrats on the shitfest that is modern America...

Patrick says

The above article is also interesting in that it says that the Rothschilds were essentially the unappointed but de facto central bank of many countries in the 1800's

Kinda anwers your question, no? Either a country has its own central bank, or some Rotchschild from somewhere else will act as a de-facto one.

Eric Holder says

Kinda anwers your question, no? Either a country has its own central bank, or some Rotchschild from somewhere else will act as a de-facto one.

And if you say no to both, they assassinate you, and get someone in who says yes.

Like Ghaddafi, who tried to issue a gold dinar.

Also, central banks fight each other. One analysis of Iraq was that Saddam was dumping the US dollar and taking Euros for oil instead. That's why he had to die.

This is the agency/bureaucracy problem we're having, I don't think the Founders anticipated it.

Can Congress delegate authority to bureaucracies that can make additional rules without Congressional approval?

I think the answer is a resounding "NO".

cisTits says

No. I am on the camp of ppl who actually read the Constitution.

I don't know what trip you're on.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C5-1/ALDE_00001066/

[The Congress shall have Power . . . To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; . . .]

Where's the section about paper? Coin always, always means metal, nothing else. In fact the word money itself has historically always referred to metal, nothing else. Fiat currency has always been issued by central banks, never by governments directly. So in advocating that paper money is legal you have circumvented the 10th.

Until fairly recently, all US dollars were in theory redeemably for silver metal that was in theory actually being held in the treasury: