patrick.net

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:

cisTits says

To coin Money

Nuttboxer has a point in that it says "to coin money".

As in, coins.

I think coin means coin.

I looked up the definition of coin, apparently you didn't. And again, if you use context, the states had all the power at this time, and federal government had almost none. Your interpretation is based on the shift that happened post Civil War, after the Constitution was written. And again, the word money has been recognized as gold and silver coin since the beginning of economics, over 2,000 years.

We have a tendency to think things only exist in the context we live in, but history tells a very different story about money than the propaganda pushed today.

Your source is congress.gov. Governments don't take stances that limit or require them to give back power, ever. Try reading an unbiased source, like Griffin. A bit more than the page or so in your link, but worth the time.

If you advocate fiat is legal, you support everything corrupt about our country. Because again, the purpose of a central bank is to deceive and destroy. And they're very good at it.

NuttBoxer says

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.

Nah, you can't say no to both. If your country has no central bank some foreign entity will act as a de-facto one, as Rotchschild example above shows. If you're Panama and your currency is USD - boom, the Fed is your central bank.

cisTits says

No, it doesn't. Never did. Didn't then. Didn't when the Brit Parliament issued paper bills before US was established and SCOTUS etc.

This is why there was a revolutionary war against the British. It wasn't over a tea tax, it was because the British central bank was printing currency and using that to purchase anything they wanted from the colonies, without actually producing anything useful in exchange for it.

That's the REAL reason for the US revolutionary war.

We're all taught total bullshit about history, and we keep making the same "mistakes" of history, because we're not taught history.

Eric Holder says

Nah, you can't say no to both.

See Libya, Tanzania, and our good man Andrew above. Now the powder was wet for Andrew, but they did try.

cisTits says

Look up the definition of misdemeanor, too.

Not the same as what is meant by High Crimes and Misdemeanors in the Constitution, either.

You're entitled to your own bullshit. You are not entitled to passing it off as factual reality.

Yet that is what you are trying to do.

There's no grey area when it comes to what constitutes coin. The fact that you have bought that lie shows why central banking economies last as long as they do. They're very good at getting people to believe their propaganda.

Just because it seems like everyone says the shots will save you, didn't mean they would. Just because a lot of people believe economics only works with paper, and routinely gut the 10th, doesn't make you right.

You are just as cucked as the Russian haters, the shot takers, and the mask wearers. It's just that the guy reaming your wife every night told you the right lie first. That's how they get all of us. And when you pout and rage about being bamboozled, remember, you're just like the all black wearing, pink haired Portland/Seattle freaks. Intolerant, and wrong.